Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Smoke-Control Orders

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what decline in overall coverage will result from the withdrawal of smoke-control orders this winter on account of the shortage of solid smokeless fuel; what restorative measures he proposes for the future; and whether he has plans for temporary amendment to the Clean Air Act.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): The present number of premises subject to suspension is 848,413, which represents 18 per cent. of the total number included in smoke-control orders over the whole country. Since I make suspension orders only when requested by individual authorities in the light of their assessments of local prospects, I cannot forecast the position to the end of the winter.
The situation does not call for amendment of the Clean Air Acts but depends upon the shortage of solid smokeless fuel that the Government inherited. To meet this shortage the Government immediately arranged the import of smokeless fuel from abroad, the restriction of exports of smokeless fuel abroad and spent £300,000 to keep uneconomic coke plants in being and sanctioned the building of a major new smokeless fuel plant near to Doncaster.

Sir G. Nabarro: While exonerating my right hon. Friend entirely for his deplorable inheritance in this context, might I ask whether he will now take urgent steps to collaborate with the responsible Ministers in assuring an adequate supply of solid smokeless fuel in future during this Tory Administration, without which the Clean Air Statute cannot be made fully operational?

Mr. Walker: The appropriate consultations have already taken place. I know how much my hon. Friend regrets the first set-back in the smokeless fuel policy for which he himself had so much personal responsibility.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for "Wine-piddle" in regard to any amendment of the Act, other than the possibility of amending the Act further to encourage the backsliding authorities which do not seem to understand the need for clean air?

Mr. Walker: There is little use in encouraging the back-sliding local authorities when the last Government left a position in which there was not enough smokeless fuel available for those who wanted it.

Public Buildings, London (Cleaning)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, what further plans he has for cleaning public buildings in London.

Mr. Peter Walker: My plans provide for completing the cleaning of Somerset House and the Old War Office Building; for further work at Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London and at Greenwich; and for starting work on other buildings as funds permit.

Mr. Strauss: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he will proceed with cleaning other buildings, but will he use all the influence he can to bring about the early cleaning of the home of the Royal Academy, Burlington House, in Piccadilly, which is the most shamefully dirty building in London?

Mr. Walker: I will certainly see that that suggestion is properly considered. Our programme involves about half as much again as the cost of recent annual programmes.

Mr. Lane: As the economic situation improves through wise Conservative policies, will my right hon. Friend try to make an early start on cleaning the exterior of the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Walker: I will certainly bear that remark in mind.

Royal Parks (Admission Fee)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his plans for charging an admission fee to the Royal Parks.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): No charge has ever been made for admission to the Royal Parks as such and my right hon. Friend has no plans for introducing such a charge. Charges are made for certain sports facilities in the Royal Parks and for admission to the Serpentine Lido. These charges are reviewed annually.

Mr. Spearing: In view of the unexpected and ill-founded policy of charging admission to public museums and galleries, and the promise that we have had of a changing social revolution, can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will neither contemplate this policy nor indeed implement it?

Mr. Channon: I have a feeling that the hon. Member did not listen to my original answer.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will be warmly welcomed in constituencies close to Royal Parks?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Anything that I can do to help him in the better management of Bushey Park I shall be glad to do.

Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Member aware that no charge has ever been made, during the last 220 years, since its foundation, to visitors to the British Museum, and that the only plausible argument for charging visitors to museums and galleries now appears to be that people will enjoy the exhibits there more? Does not that apply equally to the parks'?

Mr. Channon: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be arguing in favour of charges in the Royal Parks.

Planning Issues (Decisions)

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for shortening the time taken by his Department in reaching decisions on planning issues.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have recently transferred further classes of appeal for decision by inspectors. Some 60 per cent. will in future be decided in this way with a consequent shortening of the time taken. I am also considering how I can improve further the handling of all appeals and planning matters coming to me for decision.

Mr. Lane: While I am grateful for that Answer, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is longstanding exasperation in Cambridge at the delays which occur in Whitehall concerning development proposals and traffic management schemes? If he can speed up the tempo, my constituents will be very grateful to him.

Mr. Walker: We will certainly do all that is possible in that direction.

Mr. John Silkin: While agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that the 1968 Act is working reasonably well with regard to final determination by inspectors—it is, as he knows, only a very limited class affecting, I think, only areas of 10 residential dwellings at a time—may I ask him to consider widening the powers of inspectors so that they have a larger area to consider on final determination?

Mr. Walker: We have already made a considerable widening by increasing the percentage of appeals which go to inspectors from about 40 per cent. to 60 per cent., which represents a quite substantial increase. Certainly, this matter will be


kept continually under review, because we want to enjoy the maximum speed that can be obtained as a result of the basic principles of the 1968 Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES

Road Traffic Act, 1960 (Prosecutions)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will amend the Road Traffic Act, 1960 so that a notice of intended prosecution sent by post shall only be deemed to have been served when it can be shown that the letter was delivered in the ordinary course of post.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): No, Sir.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that in these modern times, apart from postal deliveries being delayed, there is some doubt whether on occasion these letters arrive? Would it not be appropriate in these circumstances, in order that justice may be seen to be done, to utilise the recorded delivery service?

Mr. Griffiths: We are not aware of any general criticism that the present arrangements cause injustice. Essentially, the difficulty is that it would be wrong if an offender could escape prosecution by avoiding delivery of the post.

Vehicles (Exhaust Systems)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to enable the police to deal with the problem of noise created by exhaust systems of cars and motor-cycles made so that they can exaggerate exhaust noise.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): There are already powers to deal with this problem.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Powers may be in existence but enormous trouble is caused by this additional pollution of the atmosphere which takes place day in and day out. At a time when people are able to walk on the moon, is it not odd that it is not possible yet to measure

the troublesome noise created by these vehicles?

Mr. Peyton: I entirely agree with the view expressed so reasonably by my hon. Friend and of course we shall take them into account. But, as I have said, the powers do exist. I hope that the authorities responsible for enforcement will note what my hon. Friend said.

Airports (Rail Links)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many airports in the United Kingdom have rail links for the convenience of passengers; and where they are situated.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Gatwick and Southampton, Sir.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Government are concerned to assist private aircraft companies. Could not consideration be given for a change to the comfort of the passengers, for instance, by providing as many rail links as possible and by increasing creature comforts? May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman starts by considering again Turnhouse Airport at Edinburgh?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman seems to be asking three completely different questions about three completely different subjects, none of which he understands. It is for British Rail to put forward a proposal; it has not yet done so. It is for British Rail to agree with the British Airports Authority. When it has done so, I am certain that my right hon. Friend will gladly look at any proposals which are made.

Sir Clive Bossom: Can my hon. Friend give any details of the new hovertrains to airports which have just been announced?

Mr. Griffiths: These details are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. My right hon. Friend is certainly conscious of the possibilities of hovertrains and when he has an announcement to make, I am sure that he will let my hon. Friend know.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the Channel Tunnel.

Mr. Peyton: I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member on 4th November.—[Vol. 805, c. 1073–4.]

Mr. Sheldon: Since the right hon. Gentleman will accept that these proposals were produced eight years ago and that technology in these matters does not stand still, and since we have discussed these proposals for the last seven years, surely it is about time to reconsider the whole matter and end the nonsense of a Channel Tunnel built on the proposals of such a long time ago.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member will recall that the Government that he supported were in power for about six years. The present Government have not been in office for six months yet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I can understand the relief of hon. Members no longer to have responsibility for what they left behind them. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that two Governments are involved with this, as well as a substantial international group. We are dealing with complicated proposals and we will make progress as quickly as possible.

Mr. Crouch: May I put it to my hon. Friend that I hope that he will soon put the House out of its agony of waiting for a decision for which we have waited so many years, which in my county of Kent has put a complete blight on the development of roads to the Channel ports? Would he remember that, at the moment, until this decision is made, the M2 stops 20 miles short of Britain's busiest port, Dover? We hope that he will soon put us out of our agony and tell us that we are not to go ahead with this proposition.

Mr. Peyton: I learn with a good deal of pain that my hon. Friend is in agony. Of course I would do anything I could to relieve such a very undesirable situation.

Mr. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the injustice to constituents who are trying to sell houses in the blighted area? Will he take the opportunity of reading the letter which I wrote to his Department today, and get some decision on this?

Mr. Peyton: I realise entirely what both my hon. Friends are saying—that considerable hardship is involved as a

result of prolonged uncertainty. The Government will do their best to relieve this as soon as possible.

Reflective Strips

Mr. Dance: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to introduce legislation to make it compulsory for lorries over a specified length, and particularly articulated lorries, to have reflective strips along the sides.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir.

Mr. Dance: Is my hon. Friend aware that on country roads at night long lorries, particularly articulated lorries, turning off the main road present an impossible problem? One cannot see any lights at all. Will my hon. Friend reconsider this matter?

Mr. Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend has spotlighted a real problem, but I must tell him that legislation already requires vehicles over 8 metres long and trailers over 5 metres long to be fitted with two amber reflectors on each side. Most vehicles of those sizes already have them, and they require to be fitted by the end of this year.

Mr. Dance: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to make it compulsory for pedal bicycles to have reflective strips over the entire length of their rear mudguards.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir.

Mr. Dance: I wish that my hon. Friend would think again about this matter. I have in mind bicyclists generally and road safety as a whole. Bicycles on country roads frequently have a very small red light which is sometimes obscured by dirt. It would be a good idea if reflective strips were fitted. The cost of such strips is negligible—under a shilling, I am told.

Mr. Griffiths: While accepting and sharing my hon. Friend's concern for the safety of pedal cyclists, I must point out that my Department has got there before him. An improved standard of cycle rear lamp has been required since 1st November, 1969, and new cycles have had to be fitted with an improved quality rear reflector from 1st July this year.

Mr. Dempsey: As one who has cycled for many years, may I say that the fitting of reflective strips on cycles might be an improvement, but a great deal of the problem arises because the motorist is speeding so fast that he is on the cyclist before he realises it. Will the Minister bear that in mind?

Mr. Griffiths: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a Question about the speed of cars.

Road Accidents

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of road accidents in the past year attributable to badly loaded or overloaded lorries.

Mr. Peyton: In 1969 302 lorries were involved in accidents resulting in personal injury where a defective load was considered to have been a contributory factor.

Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this rather sad chapter of accidents is even more intensive near the major ports. Will he look into the whole problem of the overloading of open lorries?

Mr. Peyton: I shall be only too glad to look into the matter with great care. It is easier to pose the problem than to solve it.

National Freight Corporation

Mr. Mather: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to modify the rôle of the National Freight Corporation.

Mr. Peyton: I have recently announced the appointment of a new chairman and will expect him to formulate a sound commercial policy for the corporation.

Mr. Mather: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he satisfied with the transfer of freight liner business from British Railways to the National Freight Corporation in view of the fact that this was one of British Railways most profitable businesses and an issue on which a former chairman of British Railways resigned? Further, will my right hon. Friend agree not to implement Section 48 of the Transport Act allowing the State to manufacture, repair and supply?

Mr. Peyton: The answer to the last part of the supplementary question concerning Section 48 is, "Yes, Sir". I can give that undertaking. As for the other part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, he can be assured that this important corporation will be conducted by the new chairman in the national interest.

Mr. Mulley: Does the Minister's statement on Section 48 relate only to the National Freight Corporation? He must be aware of the enormous improvement in employment and prosperity that has gone on in British Railways' workshops as a result of the operation of Section 48. Will he give an assurance that he will not interfere with them?

Mr. Peyton: I have answered the Question that my hon. Friend asked. If the right hon. Gentleman would care to put down a Question on the lines of the one he has just asked I shall be glad to meet him on it.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the hon. Member guarantee—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member—[Interruption.] It is difficult to distinguish between Ministers. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that this man will not be sacked if he stands on his own feet?

Mr. Peyton: I would do almost anything to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but I feel it quite unnecessary to give him an undertaking on that point when I have just appointed the chairman myself. I regard him as an excellent choice, and I have no doubt that he will serve the corporation and the national interest admirably.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon Friend bear in mind, in the context of his last reply, that he conducted with me, in 1957, a long and successful campaign demonstrating the anathema of the Tory Party to the giving of additional powers of manufacture to nationalised industries?

Mr. Peyton: I recollect my collaboration with my hon. Friend with pleasure and pride, and I shall not forget what we then said.

Vehicle Corrosion

Sir Clive Bossom: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by the Road


Research Laboratory in its work on preventing vehicle corrosion, for example, by the aluminising of steel and the production of a cheap alternative to road salt.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Road Research Laboratory is not involved in work on the aluminising of steel, which is a matter for the Motor Industries Research Association. The R.R.L. is testing the effectiveness of inhibitors for reducing corrosion caused by salt. I know of no alternative as cheap or effective as salt for improving road surface conditions in icy weather.

Sir Clive Bossom: Will my hon. Friend continue to press on with this much-needed research? It is now estimated that corrosion is costing £14 million a year on silencers and approximately £50 million a year on vehicles.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. I can tell my hon. Friend that seven new saloon cars are currently carrying out tests but in view of the need to test conditions both this winter and next, I do not expect that there will be results to report until 1972.

Drivers (Hours of Work)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is aware of the harmful effects on the business of seaside resorts caused by the regulations on drivers' hours introduced under the Transport Act, 1968; and if he will take action to remove them.

Mr. Peyton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on 11th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 183–4.]

Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for the careful consideration which, I know, he is giving to this problem? Would he not agree that a distinction should be drawn between a long-distance lorry driver, who may very well have a long period of driving during his normal working day, and a coach driver on an outing to the seaside, who may be driving for only a relatively short time?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the kind way in which he started his supplementary question. I am very conscious of the difficulty of

this problem and of the problem which is set for operators. I shall continue to give them very careful consideration.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Minister aware, however, of the harmful effects that the previous driving system had not only upon the men employed, but upon their families? Will he, therefore, take steps to ensure that the present helpful legislation remains in existence?

Mr. Peyton: Like other things, what the hon. Member describes as helpful legislation has advantages and disadvantages.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

Proposed Property Developments

Mr. Tugendhat: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now take steps to introduce new regulations requiring local authorities to inform the public about applications for proposed property developments.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that members of the public are adequately informed of planning proposals likely to affect their amenities or property.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Local planning authorities are already under a legal obligation to give publicity to proposed substantial departures from the development plan; to certain specified developments which could have a particularly adverse effect on neighbours; and to development affecting a conservation area.
For the other 400,000 planning applications a year, where it is for the local planning authority to exercise its discretion on whether publicity should be given, I now have the views of local authority associations and other representative bodies on the draft of a new circular. I also have under review the reconciliation of people's wishes to know what is being planned with the need to prevent unnecessary "blight" to property and unnecessary delays in planning.

Mr. Tugendhat: I realise from that reply that my right hon. Friend is aware


that this matter is of deep concern to London and, I believe, other areas. Would it be possible for the Ministry to bring forward legislation on this matter in the near future, or, if not, perhaps to support the Private Member's Bill standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman) which has, I believe, bipartisan support?

Mr. Page: I should like to bring forward legislation on this as soon as the legislative programme allows, but I want to see what comes out of the review which is now being carried on.

Dr. Miller: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that delays in planning permission are often the cause of a reduction in house-building? Will he ensure that there are no undue delays when planning permission is sought, in particular for the building of houses?

Mr. Page: Yes, but one always has to balance the rights of individual property owners to object with the desire to streamline planning.

Mr. Dennis Howell: When will the right hon. Gentleman produce a Green Paper or White Paper on the subject of the Government's thinking on blight and injurious affection and related matters?

Mr. Page: I cannot give a timetable, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is almost in draft.

Public Transport (Rural and Semi-rural Areas)

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a departmental committee to inquire into the problems of public transport in rural and semi-rural areas.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he now has to help the growing problem of rural public service facilities; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): We have already set up two pilot studies to take a fresh look at rural transport. Through their findings we shall be able to advise on how these problems can best be tackled generally.

Mr. Clark: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply so far as it goes. However, is he not aware that there is a strong feeling that there should be an immediate and thorough inquiry into public transport, not only in the rural but in the intermediate areas and that there is some scepticism about whether the solutions for areas in Devon and West Suffolk will be applicable to the industrial Pennines, for instance, or the Welsh valleys?

Mr. Heseltine: I fully accept that. We have already announced that we are looking at the twilight areas as well.

Mr. Mulley: I welcome the Government's decision to have these further inquiries. Will the Under-Secretary undertake that this time, unlike what happened with the Report of the Jack Committee, which was set up by a previous Conservative Administration, the Government will act on the recommendations and not totally ignore them?

Mr. Heseltine: It must depend on what the recommendations and findings of any inquiry are. The right hon. Gentleman had ample opportunity to act on any decisions when he held responsibility.

Sir Clive Bossom: May I make a special plea for Herefordshire to be included in the pilot scheme, as it is one of the most rural counties in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Heseltine: I accept what my hon. Friend says about other counties. We had to decide where to start and we hope that the lessons we shall learn from Devon and West Suffolk will be of general application. However, I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no question of the rural problems which he and many other hon. Members have being ignored because we have not been able to look at the particular difficulties of his own home territory.

Concessionary Fares

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a decision on his discussions with local authority and bus operator associations concerning the issuing of a formula for guidance in calculating the cost of reimbursing concessionary fares.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in consulting the local authorities and the transport undertakings so as to produce a formula for concessionary bus fares for elderly and handicapped people; and when he expects to make a definite statement.

Mr. Graham Page: I have nothing yet to add to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South West (Mr. Tom Boardman) on 28th October.—[Vol. 805, c. 198]

Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the winter is approaching and that many elderly people who live on the Midland Red bus routes but who get no concessionary fares will be more or less housebound? Would he not undertake to speed up his discussions, in the circumstances?

Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend has power under a Section of the Act only to order a certain formula. He has sent out circulars to local authorities on this subject. The majority of them are against the order being made, and my right hon. Friend will be reluctant to make an order in those circumstances.

Mr. Boardman: Is not the real problem that the fares structure on the nationalised bus undertakings is very high in relation to those of the efficient—which are usually the Conservative-controlled—local authority transport undertakings, and may not the solution lie in reintroducing more private enterprise into the transport system?

Mr. Page: I would prefer to leave this to the decision of the local authorities, in making these concessions if they see fit.

Mr. Mulley: While I understand the difficulties of getting agreement to this very complicated matter, surely some guidance as to the principle involved—namely, that it is only the additional costs and not the full fares which should be reimbursed—is important? As well as the local authorities, is it not important that some guidance should be given to the Traffic Commissioners, because this is a factor which is taken into account when new fares applications are before them?

Mr. Page: Guidance has been given in this circular, but it should be on the

basis of net loss of revenue to the operator. But the local authorities and the operators would prefer it in this form of guidance rather than an order.

Private Land (Fencing)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Association of Municipal Corporations with regard to the right of local authorities to fence private land which constitutes a danger to the public.

Mr. Graham Page: The association has recently submitted proposals which my right hon. Friend is considering.

Mr. Davidson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I understand the complexities of this matter, but is he aware that every now and then there is a serious accident and a child is killed or drowned because the local authority does not have the legal powers to provide the necessary fencing or safeguards? Will he give an assurance that he is well aware of the problem and will seek a way of solving it?

Mr. Page: I am only too conscious of the tragedies which happen. We are talking here only of fencing land away from the highway. Local authorities already have power to fence land along the highway where danger may arise. This is a question of entering on to private land, and it is a difficult and complex legal problem.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in his consultations on the reform of local government; and whether he will now make a further statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I shall make a further statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Lane: I am glad to hear that. Will my right hon. Friend agree that the need for radical reform of local government is urgent? Will he pay special attention to the wise proposals recently published by the Association of Municipal Corporations and to the importance of bringing town and country closer together and not pushing them further apart?

Mr. Walker: The matter is urgent, and it is very complicated. I shall eventually


be consulting all local authority associations, including the A.M.C. and the County Councils Association.

Mr. Crosland: Is the Secretary of State aware of the acute anxiety, not only in the A.M.C. but in all municipalities, at the reports in the Press that we are to have a two-tier system based on a county and county district system? Will he assure us that he has not closed his mind on the form which reorganisation will take and will listen to further representations?

Mr. Walker: There will be a period of consultation when I shall consider further representations. But our election manifesto committed us to a two-tier system of local government.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: In his inquiry, will my right hon. Friend look into the system of rating as a means of raising revenue for local government expenditure, since many of us believe that the rating system has come almost to the end of its useful life as a means of raising revenue for local government expenditure and that other methods must be devised?

Mr. Walker: Consideration is being given to the financing of local government, and a Green Paper on local government financing will be published.

Mr. Marks: When there appears to be general agreement on a suitable type of local government for a local area, as in South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire, will the Secretary of State introduce legislation to reorganise local government in that area, as the previous Conservative Government did for London?

Mr. Walker: From correspondence which I have had from Cheshire, I was not aware that there was agreement in North-East Cheshire. It is, however, important to undertake the whole of local government reform at one time because of the uncertainties that otherwise would be created.

Humber Bridge

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the estimated cost for the Humber Bridge; and how it will be financed.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what communication he has received from the Humber Bridge Board regarding the terms of financing the construction of the Humber Bridge; and what reply he has given.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Humber Bridge Board estimates the cost to be £20 million at 1970 prices. We are in touch with the board, which wrote to my Department on 16th November about financing the bridge, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Wall: Have the Government closed their mind to a Government grant for the bridge, or will it receive loan sanction? Can he say whether the dates originally set are likely to be kept?

Mr. Heseltine: The question of Government grant must depend upon decisions on the financing of the bridge. It would still be possible, if the bridge were to go ahead, for it to be completed according to the original timetable.

Mr. James Johnson: Since the Minister mystified me and the Hull City Council a few days ago on a former Question, will he come clean and tell us that we shall be given a Government loan at a rate of interest less than the public market outside in order to build our bridge?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry that the hon. Member should have been under any doubt as to what I said. I do not think that my answer was capable of causing any doubt. We did not say that there was a decision on this matter, and I believe that the local authorities are fully aware of the situation, because they are in constant touch with the Department.

Gatwick Airport (River Mole Drainage System)

Mr. Mather: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is aware that the building of a new runway at Gatwick Airport will affect the drainage system of the River Mole; and if he will take this into consideration before approving the construction of the runway.

Mr. Graham Page: Although I am aware of the proposal for a second runway at Gatwick contained in the British Airports Authority's publication of a draft


land use plan, no planning application has been made for that new runway. The only current planning application is one for a short extension to the existing runway. If any planning application is made for a new runway it will be decided in light of all relevant factors, including land drainage, upon which the Thames Conservancy would be consulted.

Mr. Mather: Is the Minister aware of the growing concern in my constituency about the recurrence of the disastrous floods of December, 1968? When such application comes before him, will he consult the Thames Conservancy on the question of this catchment area and the River Mole?

Mr. Page: Yes, Sir. I said so in answer to the Question. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Thames Conservancy will be consulted and will be given the opportunity to appear at any public inquiry.

Local Authorities (Expenditure of Sixpenny Rate)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to permit local authorities freedom to spend as they wish the product of a sixpenny rate.

Mr. Graham Page: Local authorities already have power to spend up to the product of a penny rate in the interests of their area or its inhabitants. The question of a greater freedom for them to spend money is being considered in the context of the reorganisation of local government.

Mr. Dormand: In giving a cautious welcome to that reply, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the local authority associations would welcome such legislation? Would he not agree that to do this would be in keeping with the Government's philosophy of freeing the local authorities, particularly when they were so quick to withdraw Circular 10/65, from the Department of Education and Science concerning comprehensive education, under the guise of freeing local authorities?

Mr. Page: Yes. I think that there is a case for considering again this freedom

to spend a penny and, perhaps, increase the sum. We are certainly looking into this.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION

Housing Completions

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he now makes of likely housing completions for next year as a consequence of his recent announcement on housing subsidies.

Mr. Channon: The number of public sector housing completions in 1971 will be determined almost entirely by schemes already put to contract or under construction. The recent statement on housing finance will not affect it.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the announcement about housing cuts in Scotland and all over the rest of the United Kingdom has created much anxiety about future housing completions? Will housing completions diminish or increase as a result of Government policy?

Mr. Channon: It is a little unreasonable of the hon. Member to expect me to answer a question about Scotland. Scottish matters are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask about housing in Scotland, he should ask my right hon. Friend.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said on repeated occasions, he is about to enter negotiations with the local authority associations. When they are completed, the House will know the result.

Mr. Marsh: If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer questions about Scotland, can he answer them about England, for which he has responsibility?

Mr. Channon: I have already said that we are about to enter negotiations with the local authority associations. When those negotiations are completed, the House and the country will be in a better position to judge the results.

Housing Finance

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he intends to apply in order to determine which local authorities with problems of slum clearance, overcrowding and obsolescent housing will qualify for special Government assistance as outlined in his statement on housing finance; and if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those local authorities that will qualify for the full weight of Government assistance.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): Our plans will need to be discussed with the local authority associations before detailed criteria can be decided and the effect on individual authorities assessed.

Mr. Barnes: As the Secretary of State has given the impression that the Government can both save money and improve the housing situation, what will be the position in boroughs with long waiting lists if they are not designated for Government assistance? Will they not stop building altogether?

Mr. Amery: We estimate that our proposals will help those authorities whose costs are very high, or where the rise in costs is very fast, because of slum clearance or building programmes designed to deal with serious overcrowding or obsolescence.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his proposals will not penalise local authorities with good house-building records by taking from them subsidies and low rates of interest already guaranteed to them?

Mr. Amery: I do not think that any local authority will suffer seriously from this. Housing revenues will be increased by the move towards fair rents and there will be increased help for those faced with with high rises in costs, or slum clearance programmes.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has now had with local authorities on housing finance; and what proposals he has made for their consideration.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities since 3rd November in relation to his new policy concerning housing subsidies; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the London Boroughs Association about his proposals for the review of housing subsidies.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations have taken place with local authorities regarding cuts in housing subsidies.

Mr. Amery: I have received no representations from local authorities, but I shall shortly begin consultations with their associations.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Why cannot a more detailed statement be made to the House in view of the great importance of this whole subject? Why do we have to wait until the whole matter has been considered for many months?

Mr. Amery: We thought it right to make a broad statement of intention to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, but it would be wrong to come back to the House until we have had an opportunity to test the opinions of the locally elected representatives of the people.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Does this mean that the Government's proposals will be put to the local authorities without any prior discussion in the House? Is not that treating the House with contempt?

Mr. Amery: On the contrary, I think that it is treating the House with great respect by not taking up the time of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen until we are able to put something rather more detailed before them. Our broad statement of intent would be an inadequate basis for a good debate.

Mr. Crosland: The Government have already announced that the object of these proposals is to save between £100 million and £200 million by the mid-1970s. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the local authority associations not merely what effect this will have on their average rents, which will be very large,


but what effect a cut of this kind will have on local house-building programmes?

Mr. Amery: We shall be discussing all relevant considerations with them.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Having a late Question on the Order Paper does not automatically give the right to be called to ask a supplementary question.

House-Building Programmes

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the house-building programmes in the public and private sectors, respectively; and what is his estimate of the approximate rise or fall in the numbers started in each sector in 1971 and 1972.

Mr. Amery: Measures already taken by the Government to help the building industry and to reform housing finance should benefit both the public and private sectors. But I am not prepared to make even approximate quantitative forecasts.

Mr. Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night the Chancellor, in a written reply, told me that he would not relax restrictions on bank loans to private builders? Does not this inevitably mean further closure of such firms and a further serious reduction in the number of houses built for sale?

Mr. Amery: It is a fact that, already, the graph of house building in the private sector is rising fairly steeply, but I am sure that hon. Members on both sides—particularly in the Labour Party—will appreciate the great risk which attends an attempt to set any targets.

Mr. Marsh: How long will the right hon. Gentleman go on saying that he can give this House no estimates, however approximate? Is it not now becoming obvious that the Tory Party used this as a political issue in the election and that in fact they have no proposals at all?

Mr. Amery: With some experience of pilgrimages in the political wilderness, may I take this first opportunity that I have had to welcome the return of the right hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench?

I should have thought, after the experience which his party and the Front Bench, which he had then left, had over predictions of 500,000 houses, that he would surely chide me as being very rash if I were to make any equivalent comparison.

Council House Waiting Lists

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the approximate number of families on council house waiting lists at the latest available dates; and if he will name them.

Mr. Amery: This information is not available within the Department.

Mr. Allaun: Well, it ought to be, because I can provide it. Since the Government have announced that they will cut subsidies by between £100 million and £200 million a year of what they would be in 1974, does that not inevitably mean such high rent increases for most working-class families that they will not be able to take up the houses and consequently there will be an acceleration of the fall in public house-building?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman began by commenting that the information ought to be available. Certainly Lord Greenwood and his predecessor did not think that this was necessary. On his second point, he will find that those who can afford to pay increased rents will be paying them, while those who are in need will benefit from the rebate, and there will be extra funds available for slum clearance and other emergency problems.

Mr. Marsh: But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there are estimates around the country, and that, in London alone, it is estimated that there are about 195,000 families in need of accommodation. How can the Conservative Party begin to draw up a housing policy if they have no idea of the size of the problem?

Mr. Amery: We have been only a fairly short time in power. It is interesting that, over the six years that the right hon. Gentleman's Party were in power, they never attempted to collect these figures.

Selective Employment Tax (Construction Industry)

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much he anticipates the yield of selective employment tax will be from the construction industry during the financial year 1970–71.

Mr. Amery: About £135 million.

Mr. Tebbit: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this tax, which is a tax on homes and was imposed by people who are always hawking their consciences about the homeless, should have gone by now? Should he not lean on some of his hon. Friends to help the industry?

Mr. Amery: Certainly the impact of the tax on the construction industry is very heavy and represents about a fifth of the total amount collected in S.E.T.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the Minister indicate that in the event of S.E.T. on the building industry being eliminated, the building industry will agree to reduce the price of houses?

Mr. Amery: It is not for me to say what the industry will do. That is a hypothetical question. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), who was Minister of Public Building and Works in the last Government, explained that the impact of selective employment tax on the construction industry was very serious.

Building Firms (Bankruptcies)

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many building firms went bankrupt in 1969; and what were the general reasons for their failure.

Mr. Amery: The number of bankruptcies in the construction industries in England and Wales in 1969 was 957.
There were 831 bankruptcies in 1968 compared with 599 in 1964.
The House may agree with me that a main reason for this striking increase was the mismanagement of the economy by the previous Administration.

Mr. Tebbit: Would my right hon. Friend announce shortly some measures to assist other firms which are on the edge of bankruptcy?

Hon. Members: Lame ducks.

Mr. Amery: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the marginal cases. In addition to the bankruptcies, there were 295 compulsory liquidations and 355 voluntary liquidations of construction companies in England and Wales during 1969, the first year for which figures are available. We look to the improvement in the management of the economy by the Government to remedy this situation.

Mr. Crosland: I think that the Minister was surprised by the answer which had been provided for him—or at least by the last sentence of it. However, as he has referred to the relationship between bankruptcies and the management of the economy—and the Government's management does not receive very wide admiration in large parts of the country—would he comment on the fact that the Government have stated that it may be necessary in the interest of carrying out their policy to have more, and not fewer, bankruptcies?

Mr. Amery: I was neither surprised nor astonished at the figures. They reflected the judgment which I had made before I saw the statistics of the management of the last Administration. I do not think that there will be an increased number of bankruptcies. But I make this present to the right hon. Gentleman: it will be for him to come back with a suitable Question next year if I am proved wrong.

Building Contractors (Departmental Forms)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will review the number of departmental forms sent to building contractors asking for statistical information with the intention of reducing the number.

Mr. Channon: This matter is under continual review, and the National Consultative Council has this year set up a Standing Consultative Committee on Statistics, which will deal with this matter, among others. This body met for the first time this week.

Mr. Rost: I welcome the Minister's reply that progress appears to have been made, but will he agree that there is not only a surplus of irrelevant compulsory


form filling but even a duplication between Ministries? Has not the building industry been lumbered with enough problems by the previous Administration without also having to do surplus form-filling?

Mr. Channon: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, and I shall await with interest the report of the National Consultative Council.

Housebuilding Output

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Environment what was the value at constant prices of housebuilding output in each of the past three years; and what estimate he has made of the value of housebuilding output in 1970.

Mr. Amery: The value of output at constant prices in new housebuilding in the last three years was £1,112 million in 1967, £1,154 million in 1968 and £1,028 million in 1969. The figure for 1970 is expected to be lower than in 1969, but I would rather await the actual out-turn than give an estimate.

Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend be surprised when he discovers that the figures for 1970 are likely to show a decline in house-building of at least 10 per cent.? Will not that be further evidence of the previous Government's dismal and disgraceful failure in housing? How soon can we expect the present Administration to reverse this trend?

Mr. Amery: I am not surprised, because I note that the former Minister for Public Building and Works in the last Administration forecast that the total value of work done in 1970 is likely to be less than in 1969 but that a rise in the level of activity would follow a rise in the level of completions in the private sector. There is an improvement in the private sector. I hope that this will help to correct the fall that we inherited in the public sector under the previous Administration.

Mrs. Renée Short: Will the Minister get his head out of the sand and look a little further than 1970—to 1974, when, if he looks at the evidence produced, he will see that the numbers will fall still further because almost 80 Tory-controlled local authorities will have stopped building by then? What will he do about that situation?

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friends and I look forward to 1974 or 1975 with complete confidence.

Council House Sales

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take further steps to encourage local authorities to sell council houses to their tenants.

Mr. Amery: Local authorities are already well aware of my concern to promote council house sales to the maximum extent consistent with their duty to meet the needs of the homeless and badly houses.
I will be keeping progress in sales continually under review.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend consider circulating to local authorities a list of some of the advantages to be derived from the sale of council houses, including the fact that it is a source of ready finance for the commencement of new council building projects which are urgently needed?

Mr. Amery: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The circular issued by my right hon. Friend soon after he took office has made our policy quite clear, but I will take every step in my power to re-emphasise what he has already said.

Mr. Marsh: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the price obtained for second-hand council houses when they are sold is considerably less than the cost of building a new council house? Is not the effect of this policy to place a financial burden upon local authorities and reduce the number of houses available?

Mr. Amery: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the Greater London Council and the Birmingham City Council—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be put to Ministers, not by Ministers?

Mr. Amery: Then may I put it in the form of a straight reply? Many authorities, including the Greater London Council and Birmingham, have found the opposite to be the case.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many council tenants are not prepared to leave their neighbourhood and friends but would be prepared and glad to buy their own houses, and thus generate funds for further house building?

Mr. Amery: I entirely agree. As my hon. Friend knows, local authorities are permitted to sell at reduced prices subject to a covenant covering three or five years.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister issue instructions forbidding the Conservative council in Manchester to sell any more council houses until such time as my 154 cinstituents in the slum clearance area of West Gorton, who have been left alone, who are mainly old people and who are having to live in conditions of dampness, lack of water supply and rat infestation, have had their rehousing completed, since on the present showing they will have to stay in their present accommodation until the end of the winter?

Mr. Amery: I share the hon. Gentleman's distress that such conditions should prevail in Manchester after the six years that his party were in power. I accept the seriousness of the situation. In so far as local authorities sell their houses, they will have extra funds, or, if tenants move into the private sector, they will have extra accommodation for those in distress.

Mr. Denis Howell: Since the Minister has mentioned both the Greater London Council and Birmingham in placing importance on the funds that will accrue, will he kindly tell the House what is the average income of those authorities in selling a three-bedroom house and how much it costs to replace it at present-day prices?

Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question, I will do my best to answer.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that it is healthy and right that a man should own the house in which he lives and that any means which brings this about can only be good?

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend and I have always been dedicated to the proposition of a property-owning democracy.

Slum Clearance, Hull

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the number of slums at present in Hull and the present estimated rate of clearance; and what rate of slum clearance he has estimated as a result of his proposals for housing subsidies;
(2) what estimate he has made in the years from 1970–71 to 1975–76 in the yearly increase in grants to be paid to Hull Corporation for slum clearance following his refashioning of housing subsidies.

Mr. Channon: Information on the number of slums and the present rate of clearance can be obtained from the city council. My right hon. Friend's plans for the reform of housing finance need to be discussed in detail with the local authority associations before their effect on individual authorities can be assessed.

Mr. McNamara: I was very interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. I, too, have been able to obtain the figures from the Hull City Council, but I thought that the Minister might have wanted them to formulate a policy. Is he aware that every statement that we have had from his Department today indicates that he and his colleagues do not know where they are going and how much money they will have to spend, and that many of my constituents will be living in miserable slums a lot longer before they go into more expensive housing as a result of the Government's policies?

Mr. Channon: What the hon. Member says is entirely untrue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sure that the hon. Member believes it to be true. The effects of what he says are entirely fallacious. The result of my right hon. Friend's housing finance policy will be to direct more help to the areas with special problems.

Mr. James Johnson: Does not the Minister know that the question of houses is a special case for Hull? In our city we are almost like Amsterdam—built over a swamp. If the Minister put a spade into my garden he would find the water table was less than 6 feet below the surface. The city is in a shocking condition, especially in the area near the


Fish Dock, and needs special consideration in this context.

Mr. Channon: I agree that Hull has a serious problem and I understand the concern of both hon. Members about conditions in the city. I repeat that under my right hon. Friend's proposals the areas with special problems will be the areas that get most help.

Mr. Crosland: Is the Minister seriously maintaining that the cut in subsidies in the mid-1970s which the Chancellor has already foreshadowed will have no serious and damaging effect on the level of rents or upon public house-building programmes?

Mr. Channon: It seems difficult to make this clear to the right hon. Gentleman; it is not for the want of trying on my part. I am saying that my right hon. Friend's proposals will direct most help to those areas most in need and to those people most in need—which is what the last Government failed to do.

POST OFFICE CORPORATION (CHAIRMAN)

Mr. Richard: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement upon the dismissal of the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): Having concluded that it is in the best interests of the Post Office and public, I have asked Lord Hall to relinquish his post as Chairman of the Corporation. He has agreed to do so. There have been no major disagreements between Lord Hall and myself on matters of policy. Lord Hall is leaving forthwith and will receive compensation for loss of office. Mr. Ryland, Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive of the Post Office, will act as Chairman pending the appointment of a successor to Lord Hall.

Mr. Richard: Is the Minister aware that this dismissal and the extraordinarily ham-fisted way in which it has been announced are bound to have a serious effect on morale inside the Post Office? Does he know, for example, that both the major Post Office unions have condemned his action? Is he also aware that

there are still strong rumours of major political differences in principle existing between himself and the former Chairman, for example, over the possible closing down of the Giro, over amending the Post Office Act so as to remove from the Post Office the right to manufacture its own equipment and over the possible sale to private enterprise of some of the more profitable parts of the Post Office activities?
Is the Minister further aware that there is widespread belief that the truth behind this dismissal is that he and the Government want a more pliant and politically more acceptable Chairman than Lord Hall proved to be?
I ask the Minister three specific points. First, have there been serious political differences between him and Lord Hall? Secondly, will he give an assurance that he does not intend either to close down the Giro or to remove its management from the Post Office? Thirdly, will he give an assurance that the Government do not intend to amend or repeal the Post Office Act so as to remove the right of manufacture from the Post Office?
Finally, if the Government are proposing to sell off some of the more profitable parts of the Post Office activity, and if this piece of political skullduggery is to be repeated in other nationalised industries, the Government can expect and will get the sustained and bitter opposition of this side of the House and the whole of the Labour movement.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of policy questions in relation to the Post Office. I have made it clear that there were no policy disagreements, and I would not come down to the House and say that there were no major policy disagreements if that were not the truth. I have made it absolutely clear that this decision has been taken solely because I believe that it is in the interests of the Post Office and the public.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will get along much better by parliamentary questions and not by noise.

Mr. Richard: If the right hon. Gentleman has come to that conclusion in the public interest, why?

Mr. Chataway: Neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else will lead me to


make critical remarks about the qualities of leadership of the former Chairman of the Post Office. I do not believe that would set a happy precedent. I have made it absolutely clear that the decision has been taken in the interests of the management of the Post Office.

Mr. Mawby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the change which was brought about by the Post Office Act meant that there could no longer be a political leader of one of the largest commercial organisations in the country? Does he agree that the Minister should be able to decide whether the incumbent is capable of managing the largest commercial organisation in this country and should have freedom to make this decision without it being alleged that it is made for political reasons?

Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly do not regard this as a political appointment. As my hon. Friend says. I have a responsibility under the Post Office Act in relation to the efficient management of the Post Office, and it is in the discharge of that duty that I have come to the conclusion I have.

Mr. Faulds: He could not run a whelk-stall!

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would not come to the House and say whatever it was he was not going to say. Is he aware that it was reported this morning, presumably on information from his Department, that he would not come to the House at all, that he was due to be in the North today, and that this announcement would have been put out by the Post Office without the Minister reporting to the House had it not been for my hon. Friend's Private Notice Question? Will he say whether or not that is so?
Secondly, will he say what canvassing has been undertaken by the Government, either within the Post Office Board or within management, and, if there was canvassing to reach this conclusion, what consultation he had with the trade unions concerned?

Mr. Chataway: We do not in this Administration canvass the opinion of employees of a nationalised industry—[Interruption.]—before coming to a decision about the Chairman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must here listen to what we disagree with.

Mr. Chataway: —before coming to a decision which is solely that of the Minister concerned. In reply to the Prime Minister's first question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I should have said the Leader of the Opposition. There was firmly fixed in my mind the instance of the right hon. Lady in similar circumstances and the way in which that matter was conducted at the time the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister. In reply to the first question, what I made clear was that I would not come to the House to make a statement to the effect that there had not been major policy differences if that were not the truth.

Mr. Marples: May I ask my right hon. Friend to spell out what he calls—

Mr. Faulds: Go and judge the Miss World competition.

Mr. Marples: If only you shaved, you would be much better. Leaving aside any political differences—

Mr. Orme: You must be kidding!

Mr. Marples: —may I ask my right hon. Friend to say what he considers are his reasons for saying that they are in the best interests?

Mr. Chataway: I have made it clear that I have a responsibility to the House for the efficient management of the postal services. It is in the belief that it is essential to have a change in the management of the Post Office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] My right hon. Friend is inviting me to make criticisms of individuals.

Mr. Marples: No.

Mr. Chataway: —and that I do not feel inclined to do. It would, of course, be easy enough for any Minister in these circumstances to do that, but I believe it would be an unhappy precedent and that it would be unfair for me to do so. I have made it absolutely clear that in my view this change is necessary for the efficent management of the postal services.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not clear that the Minister has been less than fair and frank with the House? Is it not a fact that the Chairman of the Post Office


Corporation was showing obstinate disagreement with the Minister in the right hon. Gentleman's intention to close down the Giro service? [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a specific assurance that he does not intend to close down Giro?

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Heffer: Get back in the cage.

Mr. Stonehouse: I had not finished my supplementary question. Is it not a fact that Lord Hall and the Post Office Board were negotiating to take over a major American supplier of Post Office equipment so that they could ensure that they would be able to obtain Post Office supplies at reasonable prices? Was not this extension of public ownership one of the reasons why the Minister decided to dismiss Lord Hall?

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Chataway: None of the issues which the right hon. Gentleman raises have any bearing on the decision that has been taken.

Mr. Stonehouse: Then what issues have?

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in recent years—concerning, for example, B.O.A.C. and British Railways—chairmen have been dismissed by the appropriate Ministers? However, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance with a public corporation such as the Post Office of having as a successor to Lord Hall a person who is a first-class manager with experience of operating a very large sector of industry?

Mr. Chataway: I certainly recall the instances which my hon. Friend calls to mind. In none of those did the Minister concerned pass criticism on the individual involved. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says about a successor.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that within the ranks of my union, within the ranks of the Post Office staff side generally, and certainly among thousands of postal workers who are queueing outside the Palace of Westminster this afternoon, there has been very high regard for the

independence of mind which has been demonstrated by Viscount Hall during his term as Chairman of the Post Office Corporation?
Will the Minister accept as a fact that this decision was taken by a political junta comprising the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself last Saturday morning?—[Interruption.] Will he confirm that his decision does not arise from any differences which he may have had—

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. Is there not a limit to the time which an hon. Member may occupy when asking a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair will call an hon. Member to order when he is out of order

Mr. Morris: Will the Minister confirm that this decision does not arise from any conflict of opinion which he might have had with the former Chairman of the Post Office Corporation in regard to the impending Post Office workers' pay claim and the staff side superannuation scheme?

Mr. Chataway: I accept, of course, that Lord Hall has the considerable qualities which the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Mr. Faulds: Then why sack him?

Mr. Chataway: There is absolutely no truth whatever in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about juntas and so on.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at Ipswich on 10th September and at Malvern on 17th September I called on him, on grounds of grave incompetence, to get rid of these Socialist panjandrums and replace them with competent business men of tried and proven ability?

Mr. Chataway: I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks, though I do not have in mind off the cuff the particular speeches to which he refers.

Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the members of the trade unions, including the members of the Post Office Engineering Union, consider that Lord Hall has qualities of leadership which are of paramount importance in an industry which employs so many people?


Is he unaware that among the rank and file workers there is a feeling that Lord Hall has been replaced to make way for a puppet politician chairman who will jump to the demands of the Minister when he is trying to make an example of Post Office workers on pay matters and who will abide by any request made by the Minister to hive off profitable parts of the Post Office to the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite in private industry?

Mr. Chataway: There are no grounds whatever for the fears of the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that this decision, which has been arrived at only after considerable thought and care, would not have been reached had I not been convinced that it was essential for the good management of the Post Office.

Hon. Members: Explain.

Mr. Tilney: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he wrote to me on 27th August saying that he had asked Lord Hall to explain why the Post Office had lost so many cheques from the public to the Winston Churchill statue memorial, the number being now no fewer than 50? Is he aware that only after I wrote to Lord Hall in October did that gentleman reply to me—on 16th November? Will he see that his successor answers his correspondence more quickly?

Mr. Chataway: That is really a management matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Pentland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who have had dealings with his Department have reached the conclusion that this is a truly disgraceful, politically-motivated decision? Does he know that our experience was that Lord Hall was dedicated to bringing about the success of every aspect—and I emphasise "every aspect"—of the Board's operations and that we found excellent qualities of leadership in him, with both the trade union movement and the members of his staff? Will the right hon. Gentleman now come clean with the House and explain in explicit terms the real reasons behind this decision?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have made it absolutely clear that I will not spell out here the individual circumstances—[Interruption.]—nor do I intend to break previous

precedent by criticising the individual concerned. I have made it clear, however, that I believe it to be absolutely essential for the effective management of the Post Office.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Montgomery.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order. The Minister was asked earlier if there was any connection between this unexplained sacking and the pay claim. The Minister did not answer that question. Can he be required to come clean with the House and give the answer, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: There is no power in any Speaker to compel a Minister to answer a question.

Mr. Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the country with the general services of the Post Office? Is it not, therefore, quite sensible to make a change at the top in order to get what are much needed improvements?

Mr. Chataway: I believe that there is dissatisfaction. I believe that this is a very demanding job indeed. I believe that the changes which I have announced today will be in the best interests of the Post Office.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has now refused for over a quarter of an hour to give his reasons for this action, and in so doing he has cast an unjustified slur—[Interruption.]—on the individual concerned. Since Lord Hall has said publicly today that he spent an hour, I think it was, with the Minister yesterday and that no reason was given to him, will the Minister tell us whether that is so? Did he give any reason to Lord Hall why he was doing this?

Mr. Chataway: In a long interview yesterday and the day before I explained to Lord Hall why he had lost my confidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but neither in this case nor in the case in which the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend was involved is it appropriate to make public criticisms of the individual?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate


that the innuendoes behind the supplementary questions asked from the Front Bench opposite can only be damaging to Lord Hall; and will he resist being tempted down that road? Does he not agree that the nation expects that a Government which have the power to hire shall also have the power to fire and, provided that proper terms of compensation are arranged, there is no damage to the reputation of the individual? What would be damaging would be if people who were appointed to these positions felt that once appointed they were sacrosanct whatever they did.

Mr. Chataway: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in the name of protecting Lord Hall's good name to try to lure me into making public criticism.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that whether or not he has good reasons for his decision, and he may have, his failure to give a satisfactory explanation this afternoon must lead reasonable men to conclude that politics played a major part in his decision? Does he realise that he is in danger of setting an unhappy precedent that, whenever we have a General Election, heads in the public service will roll? In order to clear the air, will he ensure that whoever he appoints to this job in a permanent capacity has had no connection, either financially or politically, openly with the Conservative Party?

Mr. Chataway: I do not believe that reasonable people will be led to any of the conclusions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. When he considers the range of public appointments for which the Government are responsible, he will probably reconsider what he is suggesting. As I have made clear, the decision has been made in the interests of effective management—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and the fact that I am not prepared to set a new precedent by making public criticisms will certainly not lead to any of the disadvantages the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. Tapsell: May I put it to my right hon. Friend, with the greatest respect to Lord Hall, whose personal qualities and devotion to his duties we all respect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that there is

very deep and widespread anxiety in the country about the declining standards of the postal and telephone services; and that when these circumstances arise, whether they be in the public or the private sector of the economy, it is right that a change should be made in the leadership of the undertaking concerned?

Mr. Chataway: I believe that there are anxieties and that there will be real benefits, as I have said, from the change that has been made.

Mr. Michael Stewart: My hon. Friends the Members for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) have asked the Minister whether he would make a statement about the future of the Giro and the right of the Post Office to manufacture equipment. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered either question. Will he do so now? In particular, since he has told us that there were no political differences between Lord Hall and himself, can we assume that his opinion on this matter is the same as Lord Hall's?

Mr. Chataway: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question—[Interruption.]—I will answer it. But I have made it absolutely clear that there is no connection between the future of the Giro and the matter which is now under discussion.

Sir T. Brinton: Has the Minister observed the report in the Evening Standard, which purports to be a verbal report of what Lord Hall said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot quote in a supplementary question. He can give the sense of what was said.

Sir T. Brinton: It is reported that Lord Hall said that he hoped to God that whatever action the Government took in the future would be in the interests of the Corporation. May we hope that any future appointee will pay more attention to the convenience of the public who are fed up with increasing postal charges and an ever-deteriorating quality of service?

Mr. Chataway: I will bear my hon. Friend's views in mind.

Mr. Sheldon: If our public servants are to do their jobs properly, independent of whatever party is in power, it is


essential that they should be confident that party politics will not be among the reasons for their being sacked. Is the Minister aware that the disquiet that there might be amongst public servants as a result of this present action might spread amongst many other public servants? Will he realise that he cannot sack a major public servant without giving the House a proper explanation?

Mr. Chataway: I have set no new precedent whatsoever. Indeed, I have been extremely anxious not to set a precedent which I believe would be very damaging.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not remarkable that not one supplementary question coming from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite has had anything to do with the customers' interests? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is not this the basic difference between us, and is it not about time that those interests were considered?

Mr. Chataway: I agree with my hon. Friend. The action I have taken has nothing to do with party politics, as has been suggested, but solely to do with the service available to the public.

Mr. Heffer: As the Minister has said that his decision to eliminate, if that is the word to use, Lord Hall from his job has nothing to do with the future of the Giro, and as a considerable number of Giro workers live in my constituency, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance now that the Giro will continue, that there will not be any redundancies, and that we can look forward to a very happy future for it?

Mr. Chataway: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows. I have taken a keen interest in the Giro; indeed, I have recently visited it. There is nothing I would like better than to have a debate on its future. But that does not arise on this issue today, nor does any other major matter of Post Office policy.

Mr. Farr: Is not the Minister's action good evidence that the Government are determined to take firm steps to control this large and critically important enterprise, and should not the Government therefore be fully supported by the House?

Mr. Chataway: The Government have a responsibility for the effective manage-

ment of the Post Office, and it is in the discharge of that responsibility that this action has been taken.

Mr. Edward Short: The Minister has twice said that he has a responsibility to the House under the Post Office Corporation Act. Has he not under our constitution a duty to explain his actions to the House? Has he not treated the House with an arrogance and a contempt which is unusual even for that Government?

Mr. Chataway: I believe that I would have been serving the House extremely poorly if I had been lured into criticism of an individual on an occasion such as this.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of these supplementary questions and answers it has only just been brought to my attention that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, is challenging the legality of the action that has been taken by the Minister. If that be the case, ought this not now to be regarded as a matter which is sub judice?

Mr. Speaker: The Table will correct me if I am wrong. The sub judice rule comes into effect the moment the judicial process starts.

Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order. Will the Minister say whether Lord Hall has the right of appeal?

Mr. Chataway: This does not arise, because Lord Hall and I have agreed to the terms of the statement that was issued in the early hours of this morning, and the decision that Lord Hall should relinquish his post has been agreed between him and me.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Does it not amount to this—that it is the Government's duty to ensure that the Post Office is efficiently managed? Should not the Government have the support of all parts of the House when they reach the very difficult conclusion that a change in chairmanship is in the interests of the efficient management of this great enterprise?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend correctly states the constitutional position.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Precedent in such a case would suggest that an hon. or right hon. Member would move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 so that this matter could be debated. However, I am sure the House will agree that if this were done and you followed precedent and granted it, it might not be to the convenience of the House, because it would have to take place tomorrow in the middle of a debate which we all want—we certainly want it and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members oposite do. Therefore, to make the position clear, may I make it plain that we certainly intend that this matter shall be debated, that it should be debated in Government time, and that a Motion of censure will be down to that effect.

Mr. W. Baxter: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, as this has a bearing on Scotland as well as on England, may I ask why no Scottish Member caught your eye to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: It is very difficult for every hon. Member who is seeking to catch Mr. Speaker's eye not to be disappointed when he fails. I tried to take a cross-section of the House. I am sorry that I omitted the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bidwell: As this action has caused constituents of mine to present themselves at the House today in numbers such that I cannot remember happening before—an instantaneous lobby—is it right that a Minister should come to the House ostensibly to give an explanation and yet waste the time of the House for so many minutes in non-explanation of his action?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It might have been a good supplementary if the hon. Gentleman had got in.

Hon. Members: Resign!

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House I should like to make a statement on developments concerning the negotiations for British membership of the European Communities since I last made a statement to the House on 29th October.
Since then I have had the pleasure of representing the United Kingdom for the first time at a Ministerial meeting of the E.F.T.A. Council. I am glad to say that the Council welcomed the progress being made in negotiations with the European Communites.
I have also visited Paris for discussions with members of the French Government, and have had meetings with the New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister, the Norwegian Minister of Commerce, the Pakistan Minister of Commerce and the Governor of Hong Kong.
Two meetings have taken place at the Deputies' level in Brussels.
Their proceedings included discussions on the British request that tariff quotas might be established on a number of raw materials of importance to British industry, on transitional measures, on certain Commonwealth problems and on the European Investment Bank.
The Community transmitted to our Conference of Seven the Commission's observations on the factual papers earlier submitted by the British delegation on Community finance and on sugar; and the British delegation submitted proposals to deal with the problems of New Zealand's exports of dairy products and exports of sugar by members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
Since my last statement, our fellow applicants for membership—the Irish Republic, Denmark and Norway—have had further meetings with the Community. The remaining five members of E.F.T.A. and the associate member—Finland—have also opened discussions with the Community: Sweden, Switzerland and Austria on 10th November; Portugal, Iceland and Finland yesterday. Things are thus moving forward on a broad front.
The next stage will have to be a detailed discussion of what we see as the three main questions which require to be dealt with in the negotiations. New Zealand dairy products, sugar from developing Commonwealth countries and the British contribution to Community finance.
Members will, however, have read Press reports concerning both the Commission's comments on the British factual paper on Community financing, which has, as I say, been communicated to us, and a more recent major report by the Commission, not yet communicated to us, dealing generally with the transitional mechanisms of enlargement in which are included the three main questions I have just mentioned.
We welcome the fact that in pursuit of our common desire to make progress in the negotiations the Community is formulating ideas for the settlement of all the major problems.
No position has yet been taken by the Community on the major report by the Commission to which I have just referred. We are confident that in considering problems with which this report deals, the Community Council of Ministers will take into account not only the Commission's thoughts on the subject but also our own.
There is one important point on Community finance which is, perhaps, worth making now. For a variety of reasons Community expenditure on agriculture would hardly increase as a result of the accession of the four present applicants.
Thus the present members of the Community should benefit substantially, in terms of reductions in their own contributions, from whatever contribution we eventually might make to the Community budget.
Agricultural exporters in the Community would also, of course, benefit, over the transitional period and beyond, from increased agricultural exports to the British market.
We must of course bear in mind that the figures put forward by the Commission represent a stage in negotiation. It remains to be seen whether the Commission in its proposals has taken all the relevant factors into account.
We seek a fair and sound basis for the enlargement of the Community. In that spirit we are now considering the extremely important and difficult question of the British contribution to the finances of the Community.
This is crucial to the present negotiation; and I very much hope that the Community will await the proposals which we intend to put forward on this point in the near future before themselves endorsing or adopting any position as their own.
The House may wish me to add a few words on two related subjects, which are not involved in the actual negotiations. Following the report to the Government of the Six by their Foreign Ministers on new means of political consultation between them, we have been invited to take part in a meeting in Brussels on 2nd December with the Six and the other candidates to discuss co-ordination of foreign policy in certain fields.
We have gladly accepted this invitation. Her Majesty's Government will be represented by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
On the important question of economic and monetary union, the Six have not yet determined their own attitude to the proposals in the Werner Report. The policy of the Government remains the same as that of its predecessor. Nothing but good can be gained within an enlarged Community from much closer co-operation in financial matters.

Mr. Harold Lever: While welcoming the right hon. and learned Gentleman's report, which is regarded as overdue, may I ask him whether he is aware of the anxiety of the House that he should keep hon. Members continually informed and consider their views upon these matters throughout the negotiations? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that he will find the House in this respect an ultimately more rewarding, if less immediately admiring, audience than the Monday Club for the passing of information upon these matters?
Secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange to provide a greater flow of reliable information about what is taking place in these negotiations? Does he regard it as satisfactory that the public and the House of Commons have to rely upon Press leaks of dubious


authenticity but which appear to be well informed, rather than on specific information reliably given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to see that this is corrected and that either these leaks do not occur or that proper and reliable information so far as possible is given? In particular, could he possibly, after consultation with the Community, see that we have the Werner Report and the Davignon Report and some information about the discussions that have been taking place, as well as what has been said on behalf of Britain, in relation to the financial contribution?

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of keeping this House informed. That is why I am making this statement today, in response to the proposition which was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I can assure the House that I have not been able to give anybody more information than I gave in my statement on 29th October. Subject to the wishes of the House, I shall be making a further statement after the next Ministerial meeting on 8th December.
As to the Werner Report and the Davignon Report, I think steps have already been taken for these to be made available in the Library. Where there are other public documents which are relevant I will see that they are made available in the Library. From time to time we have a little delay because we have to make the necessary translations.
As to the financial contribution, I think this is a matter for detailed negotiation. I cannot go into that matter this afternoon.

Mr. Turton: In the course of his statement today my right hon. and learned Friend referred specifically to a number of representations that he has made to the Commission in the course of the negotiations. These have been partly, and no doubt inaccurately, leaked in the Press. Surely it would be a convenience to the House to have a White Paper setting out in broad detail the representations that he has been making on our behalf?

Mr. Rippon: Naturally I will consider what my right hon. Friend has suggested.

When a White Paper is appropriate we will certainly bring it before the House. What I always try to do is to identify the subjects and the main terms of the proposals that we are discussing so that any Members of this House or outside bodies can make representations in good time about their points of view.

Dr. Gilbert: In the light of the address given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund, and in the light also of addresses given by his predecessor in office on the question of exchange rates so far as this country is concerned, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he has made any representations to the Six, or will he in the future, about the total undesirability from the point of view of this country of there being any narrowing of the possible margins of exchange rates for sterling?

Mr. Rippon: Those matters do not arise in the negotiations. They are, of course, matters of general interest which are being discussed by members of the Community in the light of the Werner Report. The hon. Gentleman can, of course, put questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about his point of view.
It is important to understand that, as to the Werner Report, nothing that would happen in the preliminary stages could possibly affect us before the negotiations are concluded one way or the other.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that at the meeting of the Western European Union Assembly last week among parliamentarians there was a feeling that he and the Community had gone about as far as possible in making available at this stage information on some very complicated negotiations?

Mr. Rippon: I think that certainly in one way or another a great deal of information is made available, I will certainly play my part in seeing that the House is better informed than anybody else.

Mr. Barnes: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that just as important as keeping this House informed is keeping the people in the country informed? Could he not find more ways of reporting direct to the public? Does he not agree that it is very important


that people should feel as involved themselves as possible in these negotiations which are taking place?

Mr. Rippon: Apart from my speech to the Monday Club, I spoke yesterday to the National Federation of Women's Institutes. One tries to avail oneself of as many opportunities as possible in making public speeches. There is a lot of talk going on about this subject at the moment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not the Monday Club need enlightenment more than most of us?
May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the progress he has made and on his very full and frank reports to this House? Will he be able to achieve his target of a decision by mid-summer without monthly Ministerial meetings, and, if not, how does he propose to bring this about?

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that my hon. Friend speaks with authority on matters of enlightenment.
With regard to the progress of the negotiations, I am satisfied that all the parties are making efforts to see that they are concluded as soon as possible. I do not think that one can be dogmatic about the timetable, but I am optimistic that we should be able to break the back of the negotiations by the summer of next year.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that he is negotiating under a mandate from this House, given in the last Parliament, that this country should make an application? Since then a number of proposals have emerged which are now inevitably discussed among the Six, and the President of France, among others, told his Cabinet that the United Kingdom may be expected to accept everything that the Six have agreed to by the time of the conclusion of the negotiations for entry. In view of this fact, is it not necessary that there should be a further debate in this House with a full account of the new developments, so that the House may give its judgment upon them before we continue to negotiate?

Mr. Rippon: We have put forward exactly the same case as was set in hand by our predecessors. We are negotiating

on that basis. We must now await the outcome of the negotiations.
As to matters which change the situation while the negotiations go on, that would create a new situation and we would have to face it. I have urged upon my colleagues in the Community how important it is that they should not take any action which would create difficulties in the course of negotiations. I think they now understand this point. I may say that I made the representation with particular force after the adoption of the fisheries Regulation.

Sir T. Beamish: As successful negotiations would lead to the creation of a home market rather more than five times its present size, would my right hon. and learned Friend say something about how he sees trade relations developing between such an enlarged Community and if five members of E.F.T.A. do not apply for membership?

Mr. Rippon: We have had discussions in the E.F.T.A. Council about our respective positions. Some members of E.F.T.A. are applying for full membership. Some are seeking other sorts of arrangements such as association. We are concerned to see that in enlarging the Community and gaining the benefit of the dynamic effects referred to in the previous Government's White Paper, we should not destroy progress which has already been made in establishing free trade within the E.F.T.A. countries.

Mr. Healey: Ministers have recently rightly expressed their concern at the trade legislation before the American Congress. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he had any discussion with his colleagues in the Common Market about this problem, and whether it is intended that there should be a common approach between Britain and the Six?

Mr. Rippon: This matter came up at the morning meeting of the Community on 27th October. They indicated subsequently that they had made strong representations to the United States Government about the dangers of growing protectionism and discrimination.

Mr. Healey: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it is intended and agreed that there should be a common approach by the Common


Market and the applicant countries on this very important issue which affects Europe as a whole?

Mr. Rippon: There are certain things we can talk together about. But the Community is now in existence and it makes its own decisions as a Community. We shall have our opportunity, after the negotiations, assuming they are successful, when we are members. Meanwhile, as I said, there are arrangements for discussion about political matters.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Would my right hon. and learned Friend make a statement to the House when, rather than if, he realises that the terms likely to be obtained are unacceptable?

Mr. Rippon: If I felt that, of course, I should probably come and tell the House pretty quickly.

Mr. Eadie: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the situation is changing, and does he not feel handicapped in trying to carry on his negotiations while the body of opinion in this country is swelling against the Common Market? Will he give that due consideration?

Mr. Rippon: I do not accept that. On the contrary, people are now understanding that vital British interests are involved, that, as three successive Government have said, it is in the British interest to negotiate to join a large community, and, if the terms are right, it will be to our benefit and that of the whole of Western Europe.

Sir John Gilmour: On the question of sugar, as our submission does not seek preferential entry for Australia, and this will lead to a shortfall in sugar coming under preferential arrangements, is it my right hon. and learned Friend's intention that this should be met by increased production of sugar in this country or by importation from the E.E.C.?

Mr. Rippon: All that will have to be a matter for further consideration as the negotiations develop. As regards Australia, we are satisfied that the transitional period will help enormously.

Mr. Alfred Morris: May I press the Minister on the need for an urgent parlia-

mentary debate on this whole question? Would he agree that his own personal enthusiasm for joining the Common Market cannot be shown to reflect opinion in the House? Would it not improve his representativeness in the talks at Brussels if we had an urgent and full-ranging debate on the Common Market? Will he consult his right hon. Friend with a view to trying to arrange this?

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of the point raised

Mr. Farr: On the three main questions that my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned, no doubt the third, relating to the British contribution to the European Economic Community's finances, will be settled on a transitional basis, but will he give the House an undertaking that the first two questions, relating to the New Zealand dairy problem and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, will be settled only on the permanent basis of continued access to our markets for these products?

Mr. Rippon: In these fields of world trade there is no such thing as a permanent basis. In regard to New Zealand and sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries, we have asked for some form of continuing arrangements, subject to review, that some procedure should be devised in order that we can assess the position as we go along. I am saying nothing about the basis on which we might eventually settle our contribution to the Community budget.

Mr. Pardoe: I welcome the progress so far and the Minister's obvious determination to succeed with the negotiations, but is he aware that speed is of the essence in these negotiations? Can he transmit his own sense of urgency to his partners in the Community? Second, may I ask him about his attitude to the Werner Report and acquaint him with the fact that few of us in the House are entirely reassured or enlightened to know that the Government's policy is the same as that of its predecessor on any subject at all? Is he aware, for instance, that the Werner Report does not call for closer co-operation in financial matters, and will he state specifically that the Government accept the idea of a European currency?

Mr. Rippon: As to the first point, I am satisfied that colleagues in the Community realise that speed is important. I have certainly impressed this upon them. On the Werner Report, it is important to understand—I think that this follows from some of the questions put already—that nothing is likely to happen during the period of negotiation which would cause any concern to anybody in the House or outside. There is thereafter a second stage which the Community is itself discussing, and on which it would take no decisions until, if we were involved, we were members of the Community. There is a third stage rather far in the future which would involve amendments to the Treaty of Rome itself. There again, we should express a view before any such amendments were made.

Mr. Longden: If it be true that the American Government are becoming ever more protectionist, does not that make it even more necessary for our economic future that we should enter the European Economic Community?

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that it is in the British interest and the interest of the whole of Western Europe that these negotiations should succeed.

Mr. McBride: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two questions? Is he aware that the Chairman of the European Commission said, on 15th September, that the purpose of the enlarged European Economic Community is political union? Taking this and the comments about foreign policy in the same context, would that mean adherence to a coherent E.E.C. foreign policy, with the abandonment of our traditional foreign policy outlook?
Second, last night, in the Palace, I listened with great concern to the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. Diversification has enabled the New Zealanders to earn only 10 per cent. of their income from sources other than their pastoral exports, and they are faced with a grave short and long-term position. Is France implacably opposed to any special procedures for New Zealand?

Mr. Rippon: We all recognise the importance of New Zealand and the extent of the problem which she would face if there was undue disruption of her dairy industry or, for that matter, her exports of lamb. I have no reason to suppose

that there is any country in the Community which does not accept that this is a special problem which must be dealt with in a special way.
As regard political union, the House may have noted that President Pompidou said not so long ago at Strasbourg that the Community rested and was built upon respect for the individuality of the States which comprise it. If, in the long run, we achieve a degree of ultimate political union, it will only be after many years of working together and harmonising our policies in many fields.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Has the Minister stuck by his position that any transitional period for agriculture must be a minimum of six years? Second, does he not think it significant that the Community is prepared to consult with us on foreign affairs, which proves that there is no need to sign the Treaty of Rome in order to be able to join with Europe in settling, matters which are of mutual concern?
Third, although my right hon. and learned Friend has said that his report had been frank and full, we have had this before. It is really a lot of detail which has no bearing upon the fundamental issue as to whether this nation is ready for it, and all the indications are that the nation is not ready. Will my right hon. Friend see that he carries the nation with him before he goes back to Brussels?

Mr. Rippon: On the transitional periods, we put forward what we thought was a fair statement of our interests. We said three years for industry, six years for agriculture, one for the Coal and Steel Community and one for Euratom. We have had an argument about whether it is right or fair to have absolute parallelism or adequate parallelism, and that has been a matter for discussion. The Community has now put forward its proposals. I have always said that we shall consider its argument in the same spirit that we ask the Community to consider ours—what is right and fair? We shall do the same in relation to Community finance. The Community will put forward its position, we shall counter it, and we shall talk about it.
There is no doctrine in this. The aim must be to secure a fair balance between the interests of the existing members of the Community and those of the new


applicants. That is our purpose, and I think that we should succeed if the necessary political good will exists on both sides.

Mr. Moyle: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he would have been able to process the negotiations much more rapidly if the E.E.C. had been prepared to grant him more than four meetings in the first half of next year, and does not the unwillingness of the E.E.C. to do that, plus its attitude on the Werner Report on fisheries policy, indicate that the Community is not likely to go out of its way to try to accommodate us within it? What prospects are there for reasonable terms emerging?

Mr. Rippon: My first feeling was that we were not having enough Ministerial meetings. I do not take that view quite so dogmatically now. A very great deal of progress has been made by the deputies, which is as it should be, because there is good will on the part of the Commission to tackle the facts and the background. It is important that Ministers should come together when there are matters to be discussed in depth which officials cannot discuss and when there are matters to be decided. Although there is no settlement on this yet, it looks as though we shall probably have four meetings in the next half year, but we are leaving as it were, pencilled notes in the diary to keep certain other dates free, if it should become necessary. I think that that is the best way to proceed.
As regards the fisheries regulation, we have made representations and reserved our position. I think that this has illustrated how important it is that the Community should not take action during the course of the negotiations which makes our position more difficult. I think that the Community's representatives have taken that point.

Mr. Temple: Is it not clear that the Council of Ministers of the E.E.C. has made its position perfectly clear in regard to fisheries, and does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that there is extreme anxiety among the inshore fishermen of England and Wales that their livelihood would be very much threatened if the E.E.C. policy were put into effect?

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that. I put it to the Council of Ministers that I was prepared to accept that it was something of a coincidence that they had concluded this arrangement—which they have been talking about for the past five years or so—just when we were starting negotiations. It was not helpful. We have made comments on the regulation and we have reserved our position about it. I am well aware of the anxieties which this has caused. Of course, the existing Community is entitled to regulate its affairs as it wishes, though, if it were frequently to change the basis on which we are negotiating in this way, that would certainly complicate my task.

Mr. Callaghan: May I revert to the question put by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and ask the Minister to clarify the point? Was he saying that the period of six years is negotiable if there are adequate concessions in other fields by the E.E.C. countries, or is it a fixed position by this country in the interests of agriculture?

Mr. Rippon: I think it wrong to negotiate on the basis that we put forward a demand and in no circumstances would we even consider what the other party has to say about it. If I were to adopt that attitude about decisions taken by the Community, neither this nor, for that matter, any other international negotiations would progress one yard.

Mr. Callaghan: Does that mean that the six-year period is not a fixed period but it can be lowered in certain circumstances?

Mr. Rippon: We have put forward our position, saying what we think is right, knowing that the Community will make certain counter-proposals from time to time. If we reach any agreement, that must then be reported to the House.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the depth and width of the negotiations which have taken place, when will my right hon. Friend be able to let us know how the various industries in this country are reacting to the way the negotiations have proceeded? It is most important to people concerned with such matters in this country to know how the reaction is going industry by industry to the discussions


which have taken place. At what stage will they be brought in?

Mr. Rippon: I have had regular meetings with representatives of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., and I propose to continue to have those meetings. They will in their own time and in their own way represent to their members their point of view and pass on to me any representations which they themselves receive from particular industries.

Mr. Harold Lever: So as to clear up any misunderstanding which might arise from the answer to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), will the Minister make clear that what is flexible, and inevitably so, in the course of negotiations is the ultimate period agreed but that, once that has been agreed as part of the terms of entry, it will be a minimum period and cannot be reduced thereafter?

Mr. Rippon: Where we have reached agreements on certain matters, they would all be subject to the qualification of final agreement at the end of the day. So nothing is really final until we reach the end of the negotiations. But we cannot take a fixed position in the course of negotiations about particular propositions in isolation. If we get a good package arrangement, these things are negotiable. Not only is the transitional period important, but what happens within the transitional period is important, too.

Mr. Marten: As the final aim of the European movement, putting it rather generally, is a United States of Europe, could the Government come clean about their attitude to this proposal? For example, if the French Government were to change and the movement towards European unity expedite itself, what would the Government do? Will they come clean? Otherwise, no agreement is likely to get through this House.

Mr. Rippon: It is important that my hon. Friend should understand this. It will not arise for this or, probably, the next Government to determine. But if views of other Community Governments change once we are members of the Community, then the British Government will express their own view at that time. I think that it is worth understanding that

no major decisions of the Community are taken without unanimous agreement, and the record of the Community shows that no decision is taken which is against what any member regards as a major interest of its country.

Mr. Barnett: Could the right hon. Gentleman put the Werner Plan in its right perspective and make clear that, so far as the Six themselves are concerned, the most that is likely to happen in the foreseeable future is an acceptance of technical narrowing of the margins but nothing much more? Second, on the general question of parity, does he feel himself bound in any way by the commitment of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in no circumstances is he prepared to consider our own parity before we enter?

Mr. Rippon: Those questions really ought to go to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, dealing as they do with policy outside the negotiations. I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman has had to say about the Werner Report. It proposes very little for the first stage, and even on that, dealing with a subject as important as narrowing margins of parity, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that our views would have to be heard.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

DEFENCE (DONALDSON REPORT)

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I would like to make a statement about the report of Lord Donaldson's Committee on Boy Entrants and Young Servicemen. The report has now been published as Command 4509 and copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are most grateful to Lord Donaldson and his colleagues for their very valuable review of a complex and difficult subject.
The Committee accepts that the need for adequate defence forces demands a system of binding engagements. It also acknowledges the opportunities to leave that already exist for those who for various reasons change their mind about a Service career. At present about 12,000 boys and adults are allowed to leave


prematurely each year. Nevertheless, the Committee concludes that all who join the Services before age 17½, whether on boys' or adult engagements, should be allowed to change the terms of their engagements when they reach the age of majority.
It recommends that most boy entrants should have the right at the age of 18 to confirm their original engagements or to reduce them to three years. But it recognises that this would not give the Services a far return from apprentices who need two or more years' training. It therefore recommends that these longterm apprentices should have three options at the age of 18—to confirm their original engagements, or to complete their training and then give five years' productive service, or to leave forthwith in mid-training.
We have had to consider these recommendations against the background of the extremely serious manpower situation which we found when we took office, and we have had to weigh carefully the consequences of any relaxation of the present engagement structure for the maintenance of the strength and efficiency of the Forces. We have concluded that, on balance, it would be right to accept Lord Donaldson's main recommendations, with one modification.
While we appreciate the motives of the Committee in differentiating between apprentices undergoing long training and the majority, on balance we have concluded that in fairness we ought to treat boys in both groups alike. In some cases they live, work and train side by side. They would find it hard to understand why, when they reached 18, some could leave at once and the others only in three years' time.
In order to put the two groups on a much more equal footing, we have decided to introduce a scheme under which everyone who joins before 17½ will have the opportunity at 18 of confirming his original engagement or choosing to leave three years after his 18th birthday or completion of training, whichever is the later. There will be no option to leave at 18 for the small group of apprentices who undergo long training, but equally they will not be required to serve for as long as five years after completing their training.
Although the Committee's recommendations were framed in relation to the raising of the school-leaving age, which will occur in 1972–73, the Government have decided to introduce the new arrangement on 1st April, 1971. It will apply not only to those who join thereafter but also to those already serving who are still under 18.
The Government have accepted all the other recommendations of the Committee except that which recommended that the size of the defence budget should be adjusted to take account of the social and economic value to the nation of the training of boys. We regard this particular recommendation as impractical.
The Committee recognised that implementation might have to be phased. Because of the Navy's manpower shortages, this will be necessary in the case of Recommendation 3, that the period of service required before adult naval ratings and Royal Marine other ranks can apply for discharge by purchase should be brought into line with the other Services. However, we intend to make steady progress year by year, so that by 1977 at the latest the Royal Navy will be in line with the two other Services.
I am very conscious of the risks in our decision for the manning of the Services. I believe, however, that we have struck a reasonable balance between the need, which we accept, for some liberalisation of the present arrangements, and the need to provide adequate defence forces. I should like to draw attention to the tribute which Lord Donaldson has paid to many aspects of Service life and training. In his own words,
the Services provide a form of education and training available equally to the less privileged, which is not provided elsewhere and which is of the highest value to the individuals and the country.
I am confident that with this relaxation of the engagement rules, and with the new impetus of the present Government's defence policy, increasing numbers of boys will avail themselves of these opportunities.

Mr. George Thomson: We on this side of the House join the noble Lord in his thanks to the Donaldson Committee, which had to deal with the difficult conflict between the liberty of the subject and the needs of national security. Is the Minister aware that hon. Members


on both sides will naturally want time to study the White Paper which has just been published? Indeed, there may be a demand to debate the issues it raises. Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that, as a preliminary view, we regard the decision as a step in the right direction, since it reduces the liability to service of young entrants by rather more than half, but that three years' notice of ending a contract is still a long time? We hope that further progress can be made along the lines of the very principle that the Donaldson Committee lays down, that a voluntary system must be voluntary. We regard the proposal on adult purchase of discharge from the Navy as being far too slow. The period up to 1977 is a very long transitional period, and we hope that the Government will be able to speed things up a good deal.

Lord Balniel: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his preliminary remarks. This is a complicated subject, which we are, of course, perfectly willing to debate. I accept that the concept of a voluntary service is that it should be truly voluntary. The House must accept that the decision is a major advance in the liberalisation of the engagement structure. This liberalisation, combined with the improved pay arrangements, makes a career in the Services one of the finest in the country.

Mr. Ramsden: My hon. Friend's statement sounds quite all right, but this is a very complicated matter and will require study by those of us who have not seen a copy of the report. Is it not rather a pity that the Government had to reject the recommendation that the defence budget should be relieved of a cost which more properly belongs to education, for the educational value of the military training given to the boys?

Lord Balniel: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's point. From the Defence Minister's point of view it is tempting to exclude all the educational work which we undertake in the defence field and place it on another budget, but it is impracticable to exclude one section of our work and place it on another Department's budget.

Mr. Driberg: Since the noble Lord said that he was very willing to debate this matter—which is complicated—will

he at once discuss it with the Leader of the House, so that a debate can be arranged? Second, while I of course agree that this is a considerable advance on the previous situation, the waiting period of three years after exercising the option seems unconscionably long. If a young man finds that he has made a mistake in his choice of career and wants to get out of the Services, to be told that he must wait for another three years is almost an incentive to go absent.

Lord Balniel: The question of a debate is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman points out that a continued engagement of three years is a long period. But it is a considerable improvement on a period of nine years. The Committee specifically points out that a binding engagement in the Services is a necessary feature of Service life.

Mr. Wall: I accept the compromise which my hon. Friend has announced, but can he say what effect it is likely to have on the Royal Navy, which depends overwhelmingly on boy service? Will he give immediate consideration to ending the break period after three months' training?

Lord Balniel: Two-thirds of the recruits into the Royal Navy are boys, but it has been prepared to face the risk involved. Although there is a risk in this liberalisation measure, I believe that its effect on the image of the Services will result in a greater willingness of parents, youth leaders and teachers to encourage young men to join the Services. The break period is under examination.

Mr. John Morris: Ministers in the last Government believed that the existing system actively impaired recruitment and that liberalisation was necessary; hence the Committee and the Report. We welcome the decision as a major step forward. But does it mean that those over 18 on 1st April, 1971, will not benefit from the proposals? The decision will have the greatest practical significance for the Royal Navy. Will it have to wait until the late 1970s at the earliest for reform? Cannot there be a speedier rationalisation for the Navy?

Lord Balniel: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's first remarks, which I understood to be a welcome for the


Report. We cannot make the change retrospective to cover all adult Servicemen who joined as boys—that would be impossible—but I have already announced to the House that I am examining the adult engagement structure.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my hon. Friend emphasise to the country Lord Donaldson's statement that:
The Services should be seen as a fine career which a boy is lucky to get into, not as a second best to industry."?
Will my hon. Friend recognise that the individual needs of the three Services are to some extent different in detail, and will remain so, and will he make sure that these very necessary differences are not subordinated to uniformity for uniformity's sake?

Lord Balniel: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. As I have said, I believe that a combination of a good salary in the Services and this major advance in the liberalisation of the engagement structure makes the Services one of the finest careers in the country. There will be no intention to achieve uniformity for uniformity's sake, but where rationalisation of the engagement structures can be achieved without harming the individual Services, that is desirable.

Miss Lestor: I welcome the Minister's announcement as liberalising the situation. Will he make a specific statement now or later about the position of many young men who applied to be released from the Services, were turned down, and are now adults, some of whom have absented themselves? Will there be any amnesty for them to make a new application? What exactly will their position be?

Lord Balniel: I do not think I can add to the answer I gave. If the hon. Lady puts down a specific Question about that matter, I shall try to answer it.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: No one seems adequately to have thanked my hon. Friend for his much more liberal and humane reaction to the report than we encountered among some members of the last Government.

Lord Balniel: I am very appreciative of my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the hon. Gentleman at least reconsider the proposal made by my right hon. Friend that there should be a gradual reduction of the three years after 18, because three years to a young man is such a long time? Will he agree that this recommendation was unanimous? If he wants uniformity between apprentices and non-apprentices, why should he not reduce the 21 years rather than increase the 18 years for the apprentices?

Lord Balniel: I cannot undertake to re-examine the decision we have reached on this matter. It has been reached after great thought. Considerable risks are being taken at a time when the manning position in the Services is not good. We believe this to be an advance and to be in the interests of the Services.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Since a man is deemed to be unable to make a contract until he is 18 or to get married without his parents' consent until he is 18, why make a difference in relation to entry into the Armed Services? Is it not holding a young man to an agreement which he really was not old enough to make? Does it not smack, therefore, of press-gang methods?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman should read the report. The point is that at the age of 18 these youngsters will have the opportunity of confirming their long-term engagement or shortening it to a period of three years. This is a reasonable compromise in a very difficult problem which I hope is acceptable to the House.

Mr. Dempsey: I welcome this advance in the liberalisation of the engagement structure. Large numbers of young people at the moment are on desertion from the Services. Some of my constituents have, unfortunately, deserted from the Royal Navy. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that these young people have obviously been misplaced, that their choice has been wrong, and that they have no intention of serving? Does he not also agree that they are therefore lost to both the Navy, to industry and to themselves and that if we could only reduce the three-year period they might be able to rehabilitate themselves in our society?

Lord Balniel: I doubt whether the facts support the hon. Gentleman's statement that large numbers are involved. But there are arrangements for those boys who are unhappy or unsuitable to be released from the Services, and we will do all we can to ensure that those who are unhappy or unsuitable are released.

Mr. Dalyell: In relation to page 40 of the report, has the hon. Gentleman been able to reflect on the suggestion of our former colleague, Alan Thompson, of Edinburgh University, who is a member of the Committee, on the issue of the ombudsman? Has he considered whether the ombudsman system can be reconciled with the needs of security and discipline in the Services? if so, would it be better to have the Swedish system of appointing a separate ombudsman for the Services or to extend our own system? What kind of Service complaints could be submitted to the ombudsman?
While I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Army, I would have liked the services of the ombudsman when looking at a recent difficult case, possibly a case of homosexuality, involving a West Lothian teenager. These homosexual cases are very difficult cases in which an ombudsman might help.

Lord Balniel: I appreciate the point but the question of extending the investigating power of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to the public services as a whole, including the Armed Forces, is already under consideration by the Government.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had three important statements today and I rather detected that at the end of the time you were anxious for us to proceed. Standing Orders say that Questions shall last an hour and that we shall then enter upon the Orders of the Day. Would you therefore consider asking the Leader of the House to discuss with you the convenience of the House when we embark upon the Orders of the Day one hour and twenty-five minutes after what was expected to be the appointed time? Could you make certain that the Government space out their very important statements, in which the House is naturally interested,

in such a way that hon. Members who come here expecting the business to start at the time laid down in Standing Orders shall have the opportunity of ensuring that that business is not preceded by many statements of this length?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has said. No one has been keener than I to space out statements, and I have done everything I could to space them out. I take no credit for doing so, but I have in fact spaced them out a great deal better than the previous Government spaced theirs out. I have done my best and always will. But I cannot take account—and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman may laugh at me for what I am going to say—of Private Notice Questions which may arise on a day when I did not know they were going to arise and on which statements have been planned.
I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is fair to me to point out that part of the time today has been taken up by a Private Notice Question, quite rightly and properly, which was put down by an hon. Member opposite but which I could not take account of in arranging for the statements to be made. I am sorry about this and I will do my best in future.

Mr. Speaker: This is no new problem. It has existed in the past. I appreciate the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and by the Leader of the House. The House is in some difficulty in balancing the eagerness of hon. Members who ask supplementary questions on statements and the eagerness of those hon. Members waiting in the wings for the Orders of the Day, which we have not yet reached.

ESSEX UNIVERSITY STUDENTS (FIRE BRIGADE)

Mr. Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one appreciates more than I do the statement you have just made and the reaction of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. But as this appears to be a day of protest


and much questioning, I hope you and the House will bear with me if I raise a matter of very grave importance affecting my constituents, and I will be brief.
I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a specific and important matter which I believe should have urgent consideration, namely,
The violent obstruction offered yesterday to the Essex Fire Brigade in the performance of their duty by students of Essex University, the consequent risk to life and property that their action caused, and the wider implications for safety against fire in the County of Essex.
My reasons for saying that this matter is of specific importance and that it is also urgent are, briefly, as follows.
You will be aware that only last night, supported by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), I raised the matter of the serious anxiety of my constituents concerning industrial fire risks on Canvey Island, in the course of which I mentioned two serious fires, one at the Shell Oil Company's refinery at Shellhaven and a later one in July, and I stressed the dangers and the strain on our fire-fighting resources. This morning, as if to ram the lesson home, a further serious fire took place at the Shell-haven refinery.
I am sure that you and the whole House would agree that at any time obstruction to firemen in the course of their duty is a matter of grave public importance, since life itself may be involved. Yesterday, protesting students lit a bonfire on the premises of Essex University. It may be without knowledge that they did so over a 10-inch gas main. Essex Fire Brigade was called, firemen were assaulted while carrying out their duties, the fire hose was turned on the firemen and the hose was slashed.
The specific and criminal obstruction offered yesterday at Essex University, at a time of acute anxiety in South Essex about fire precautions generally, given extra point today by the major fire which has broken out at the Shellhaven Refinery, the third this year, adding as it must to the burdens of our already heavily pressed county fire brigade, is, I submit, sufficient justification for my application to be granted.

Mr. Speaker: As is customary, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr.

Braine) has been kind enough to inform me that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thought should have urgent consideration; namely,
The violent obstruction offered yesterday to the Essex Fire Brigade in the performance of their duty by students of Essex University, the consequent risk to life and property that their action caused, and the wider implications for safety against fire in the County of Essex.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the hon. Member's representations, but I have to rule that his statement does not fall within the provision of the Standing Order and that I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Delargy: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: It is customary when the Chair has ruled on Standing Order No. 9 for the Ruling to be accepted.

Mr. Mather: On a new point of order. The implications for fire brigades over the whole country are so serious, Mr. Speaker, that I ask you whether you would accept a submission—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot have heard what I said. He is seeking to pursue a matter on which I have ruled. If he wishes to raise the matter in a parliamentary way, it must be in some other way; for instance, at business questions tomorrow.

BILLS PRESENTED

COAL INDUSTRY BILL

Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Secretary Carr, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Richard Wood, Sir John Eden, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, and Mr. Nicholas Ridley, presented a Bill to provide further finance for the National Coal Board in respect of pit closures and for the making of payments to workers in the coal industry made redundant; to increase the limit of the Board's accumulated deficit and provide for its subsequent alteration by order of the Secretary of State: to enable the Board to borrow


money otherwise than in sterling and to join in furnishing technical assistance overseas; to make further provision as to the power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the Board with respect to their activities and accounts; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

SHOPS (WEEKDAY TRADING) BILL

Mr. Evelyn King, supported by Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Rees-Davies, Mr. Bruce-Gardyne, Mr. Harold Gurden, Miss Joan Hall, Mr. Iremonger, Mr. Nicholas Scott, and Miss Joan Quennell, presented a Bill to amend the Shops Acts, 1950 to 1965, in relation to weekday closing; and to protect shop assistants in regard to their conditions of employment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 11 th December, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

UNSOLICITED GOODS AND SERVICES BILL

Mr. Philip Goodhart, supported by Mr. John Hall, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Dame Joan Vickers, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. James Wellbeloved, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Martin Maddan, Mr. Peter Blaker, Mr. William Rodgers. Mr. Kenneth Warren, and Mr. David Steel presented a Bill to make provision for the greater protection of persons receiving unsolicited goods or services, including unsolicited entries in directories: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th December, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Mr. Robert Hughes, supported by Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. John P. Mackintosh, Mr. Bruce Millan, and Mr. John Smith, presented a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to divorce, dissolution of marriage and judicial separation, and to the power of the court to award interim aliment; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd January, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Mr. Arthur Probert, supported by Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Edward Gardiner, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. G. Elfed Davies, Mr. Brynmor John, Mr. Richard Kelley, Mr. Daniel Awdry, Mrs. Lena Jeger, and Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, presented a Bill to extend in certain cases the time limit for bringing legal proceedings where damages are claimed which consist of or include damages for personal injuries or in respect of a person's death, and to amend accordingly the Limitation Act 1939, the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions, &c.) Act 1954, and the Limitation Act 1963; to provide that in assessing damages for widows suing under the Fatal Accident Acts, remarriage prospects shall be left out of account; to make further provision for the payment of interest on damages, and to amend accordingly the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and the Administration of Justice Act 1969; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th January and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

MOTOR VEHICLES (PASSENGER INSURANCE) BILL

Mr. Churchill, supported by Mr. John Hannam, Mr. David Waddington, Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Mr. Richard Marsh, and Mr. Frank Allaun, presented a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1960 so as to require users of motor vehicles to be insured in respect of liability for death or bodily injury to passengers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th February and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

EMPLOYED PERSONS (SAFETY) BILL

Mr. Norman Buchan, supported by Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Hugh McCartney, Mr. Harold Walker, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. Eric Heffer, and Mr. Emlyn Hooson, presented a Bill to further the making in factories and elsewhere of arrangements for persons representing employees to participate in promoting the safety of


employees, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th February and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE BILL

Mr. Alexander Lyon, supported by Mr. S. C. Silkin, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, Mr. Norman Miscampbell, Mr. Alec Jones, and Mr. Emlyn Hooson, presented a Bill to restate with certain alterations the grounds on which a marriage is void or voidable and the bars to the grant of a decree of nullity on the ground that a marriage is voidable; to alter the effect of decrees of nullity in respect of voidable marriages; and to abolish certain remaining bars to the grant of matrimonial relief: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th January and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

TRAVEL AGENTS AND TOUR AND CHARTER OPERATORS REGISTRATION BILL

Mr. Edward Milne, supported by Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Mr. Fernyhough, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Will Griffiths, Mr. Ted Fletcher, Mr. George Darling, Mr. Albert Booth, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Charles Loughlin, and Mr. Alfred Morris, presented a Bill to provide for the registration of travel agents and tour and charter operators; and to introduce a code of conduct for the travel trade: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th February and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

REPORTING OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL

Mr. Keith Stainton presented a Bill to make provision for the inclusion of certain data in printed reports or publications, and radio and television transmissions which refer to particular industrial disputes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd January and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

URBAN AND RURAL ENVIRONMENT BILL

Mr. Chapman, supported by Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Gummer, Miss Joan Hall, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. J. R.

Kinsey, Mr. Roger Moate, Mr. Paul B. Rose, Mr. John Tilney, Mr. Peter Trew, Mr. Tugendhat, and Mr. David Watkins, presented a Bill to improve control of the environment in town and country by amending the law relating to preservation orders on trees and buildings, by facilitating repairs to certain buildings, by requiring the publication of more information about planning applications, and by extending the requirements for planning permission in certain cases; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read for the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th February and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

MINEWORKERS' PROTECTION BILL

Mr. Alec Jones, supported by Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Alan Beaney, Mr. G. Elfed Davies, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. George Grant, Mr. Eric G. Varley and Mr. Brynmor John, presented a Bill to amend the enactments providing for benefits out of the Industrial Injuries Fund in respect of industrial diseases; to provide additional causes of action for damages in respect of those whose employment is regulated by the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954 and are suffering from pneumoconiosis or other lung diseases; and to make further provision for the safety, health and welfare of miners and for the management and control of mines; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 19th March and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES BILL

Sir Clive Bossom, supported by Mr. S. C. Silkin, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Hall-Davis, Mr. Tom Boardman, Mr. Daniel Awdry, and Mr. Emlyn Hooson, presented a Bill to provide for the recognition, without resealing, of certain grants of administration and confirmation throughout the United Kingdom; to allow for the inclusion of real estate in any part of the United Kingdom in the inventory of the estate of a person dying domiciled in Scotland; to amend the law with respect to the grant of administration by the High Court and resealing by that Court of administration granted outside the United Kingdom and to exempt from stamp duty guarantees given under the law so amended; to make provision with


respect to the duties and rights of personal representatives; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th February and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

OWNER-OCCUPATION (HELP FOR PRIVATE LANDLORDS' TENANTS TO PURCHASE) BILL,

Mr. Frank Allaun, supported by Mr. James Wellbeloved, Mr. Julius Silverman, Mr. Reginald Freeson, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Jack Dunnett, Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Stallard, Mr. Norman Atkinson, and Mr. David Stoddart, presented a Bill to give tenants of private property owners the right to purchase their dwellings at a reasonable price before the properties are taken out of their present rent control; to encourage local authorities to offer low-deposit or no-deposit mortgages at low interest rates to sitting tenants wishing to buy their homes from their landlords; and to permit local authorities to buy such dwellings at the same price if the tenant declines the opportunity to purchase: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd January, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS (No. 2) BILL

Mr. Andrew Faulds presented a Bill to amend the law regarding attachment of earnings orders: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) BILL

Mr. Douglas Houghton, supported by Mr. John Silkin, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Turton, and Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, presented a Bill to provide for the setting up of a permanent review body to examine and make recommendations to Parliament from time to time upon the emoluments, expenses, pensions and conditions of service of Members of the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th December, and to be printed [Bill 50].

INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Mr. Ian MacArthur, supported by Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison, Mr. John Smith, and Mr. Russell Johnston, presented a Bill to amend the Interest on Damages (Scotland) Act 1958 by extending the power of the courts to order payment of interest on damages: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th January, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BILL

Mr. S. C. Silkin, supported by Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Sir George Sinclair, Mr. W. T. Williams, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Ivor Richard, Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mr. Robert Maclennan, and Mr. Woodhouse, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment and functions of a Commission of Human Rights to promote the greater protection and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to provide the means of obtaining an effective remedy in respect of the infringement thereof; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd April and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

DANGEROUS LITTER BILL

Mr. Peter Mills, supported by Mr. John Wells, Mr. Ray Mawby, Mr. John Biffen, and Mr. Jerry Wiggin, presented a Bill to amend the Litter Act 1958 so as to make better provision for the abatement of dangerous litter; to empower local authorities to promote the abatement of litter by means of publicity; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd April and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL

Mr. John Spence, supported by Sir Ronald Russell, Mr. Raymond Gower, Mr. Peter Fry, Mr. McCrindle, Mr. James Dunn, Dr. Anthony Trafford, Dr. Tom Stuttaford, and Mr. Patrick Cormack, presented a Bill to allow the conduct in or through any newspaper of the prize competition described as 'spot the ball' and by similar names: And the same was


read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th February and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

CAB BILL

Mr. Garrett, supported by Mr. Albert Roberts, Mr. Ray Mawby, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Mark Woodnutt, Mr. Julius Silverman and Mr. Marcus Fox, presented a Bill to prohibit the display on certain vehicles of signs or notices containing the word 'taxi' or 'cab' and signs or notices of certain other descriptions; and to restrict the issue, in connection with certain vehicles, of advertisements containing either of those words: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd April and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

ST. VINCENT (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a gift of a Parliamentary library to the House of Assembly of St. Vincent and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I also deal with the Motion relating to the gift of a mace to Mauritius.
The gift to Mauritius follows the now established tradition of the House of Commons, with which we are glad to comply, of sending a gift to the legislature of a Commonwealth country to mark the country's attainment of independence within the Commonwealth. The gift to St. Vincent is to mark that country's achievement of complete internal self-government and associated status with the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members may recall that on 12th March, 1968, in reply to a Question, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, informed the House that Her Majesty's Government would propose that the House should offer an independence gift of a mace to the Mauritius Legislative Assembly. It has fallen to the present Government to make such a proposal, and this we are pleased to do.
The House may also recall that in the same year gifts of Parliamentary Libraries were presented on its behalf to a number of former British dependencies in the Caribbean to mark their attainment in 1967 of complete internal self-government and associated status with the United Kingdom. In October, 1969, the Island of St. Vincent became an Associated State, and it is now proposed that the House should make a similar presentation to the St. Vincent House of Assembly. The Parliamentary authorities in both countries have, of course, been consulted and they welcome the proposed gifts.
For the convenience of hon. Members, it is hoped that the mace will be on display in the House between 7th and 11th


December. The Library of Parliamentary reference books for St. Vincent is a duplicate of the set presented to the other Associated States.
If the House accepts the Motions, arrangements will be made by Mr. Speaker for small delegations from the House to present the gifts. We understand that St. Vincent's presentation can conveniently be made in January and the Mauritius presentation in March, 1971.
I therefore commend the Motions to the House in the expectation that they will be accepted as an expression of our friendship and good will towards the legislatures of Mauritius and St. Vincent.

Question put and agreed to.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

MAURITIUS (GIFT OF A MACE)

Resolved,
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a gift of a Mace to the Legislative Assembly of Mauritius and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

ENACTMENTS CONTINUED IN FORCE

The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I should announce to the Committee that I have selected only Amendment No. 1 in the names of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and his hon. Friends. Mr. Elystan Morgan.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I would only observe that Celts seem to get in everywhere.
I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide an opportunity to debate immigration. Recalling and re-reading these debates over the last five years at least, it is clear that they have been a valuable occasion for discussing one of the major issues of the day and the wider issues of immigration control for aliens and for Commonwealth citizens. The present Lord Chancellor—we shall miss him very much from these debates—observed in 1967:
I hope that that consensus remains. I think that great public advantage derives from the fact that, as matters stand at the moment, neither side of the Committee … feels disposed to exploit what is potentially an emotionally charged atmosphere … I shall seek to retain that consensus which, it will be remembered, depended on two propositions: first, that it was desirable to restrict immigration to this country; and, secondly, that persons lawfully within this country should be treated on the basis of the universal declaration of human rights, that one person should be treated in the same way as another in respect of dignity and human rights".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 441.]
This is the spirit in which we approach immigration and race relations in opposition.
We believed then, as we do now, that this does not mean sweeping problems under the carpet or running a muted discussion. There are real social problems arising from immigration which are not due just to immigration but which, because of conditions here in this country as well, we should be very foolish to ignore. In any event, leadership cannot come out of muted discussion. In this respect I applaud the statement of the Prime Minister, reported in the July, 1970 Bulletin of the Runnymede Trust:
The aim of our policies on immigration and race relations is full equality for the immigrant in the life of Britain.
That statement of the Prime Minister should not be muted.
Since last year, it is not just that there has been a change of Government but also that the new Government have promised a new Immigration Bill. Much depends on its extent and depth, but I presume from the Press discussion—which is sometimes wrong in detail, but rarely persistently so—that a new long Immigration Bill is on the stocks and that soon, possibly in the New Year, we shall see it in its full form.
Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to hear the Government's thoughts on the Bill today. Surely, at this stage, first thoughts is not too much to ask. In any event, as was suggested in the last issue of the Sunday Times:
It is a measure which would greatly benefit from public discussion before the prestige of the Government is committed to every detail of it.
It went on to suggest a prior White or even Green Paper. I ask the Government seriously to consider this suggestion, because discussion in this field is vital.
I make a further suggestion to the Government, that the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration be brought into the discussion—not to replace the Executive or to do the job of the Government, but to join in the discussion and comment on the White or Green Paper which would be issued. The Select Committee considered immigration control last Session, but, because of the General Election, did not complete its work. But the minutes of evidence at least have been invaluable, and the analysis and summary made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middles-

brough, East (Mr. Bottomley) and the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), where the information was used and analysis made, has been of great value.
In brief, I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should consider publishing a White or Green Paper for public discussion and using the Select Committee as part of this public discussion. At the least, the Government will have realised, since 18th June, the complexity of the detail of immigration control and the danger of ill-thought-out proposals.
The Conservative policy generally was set out in the party manifesto "A Better Tomorrow", the major part of which stated:
We will establish a new single system of control over immigration from overseas. …. We believe it right to allow any existing Commonwealth immigrant who is already here to bring his wife and young children to join him in this country. But for the future, work permits will not carry the right of permanent settlement for the holder or his dependents. Such permits as are issued will be limited to a specific job in a specific area for a fixed period, normally twelve months. There will of course be no restrictions on travel. These policies mean that future immigration will be allowed only in strictly defined special cases. There will be no further large scale permanent immigration.
This theme of the existence of large-scale immigration was echoed in the Home Secretary's speech in the debate on the Address in July, when he said:
… we believe that any further large scale immigration will be bad for everyone here.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 210]
This itself only echoed the all-pervading spirit of the speech made at York by the Prime Minister on 20th September, 1968, when he said:
What therefore we need is not a complete ban on all immigration but a strict limitation and effective control.
Certainly, at that time in particular a popular view would have had it that large numbers of Commonwealth citizens were flooding into this country, but political mythology is no basis for thought and action on such a complex matter.
The key to the rate of Commonwealth immigration is the number admitted on employment vouchers, which are different from work permits. The relevant figures, which have been published from time to time in HANSARD, show that in 1963 there were 30,000-odd employment


voucher holders admitted to this country, and that on average we have found since that approximately—it can be no more than approximate—each employment voucher holder from the Commonwealth brings in three dependants with him.
But the 30,000 figure has fallen to about 4,000 and has been about that number since 1966—for the last four years. That is a great fall in the number of employment voucher holders. Following that, this scheme is obviously the regulator of the number of dependants who are admitted here under the terms of the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act. The figures published by the right hon. Gentleman's Department show that the number of dependants rose from 1963 to a maximum of nearly 53,000 in 1967. They fell by 10,000 and by 15,000, and they are down to about 20,000 this year. There must be a further fall next year because they follow the fall in employment vouchers but at a time period of about four or five years.
It would have been easy at the time of the Prime Minister's York speech—the keynote speech, as it was said to be, on immigration policy of a future Conservative Government—in view of the bulge in the number of dependants, to have stopped further immigration of dependants of people already here. The then Government set their face against this and were supported by the then Leader of the Opposition, and it is in the manifesto. My first question is: is this still the policy of the new Administration? There is no large-scale immigration, and it is not out of control, and I am sure that the Government, having looked at the books, must realise that. I have looked very carefully at the Government's proposals as a whole. How do the Government view them now?
In the past the Government have put some weight on the need to place immigration control on a permanent basis, both for aliens and for Commonwealth citizens, and to get away from what is an admittedly unsatisfactory system of annual parliamentary control. There is no difference between the parties on this point. What matters is, when and on what basis? However, when we have legislation which will not have to be renewed annually, I hope that some means will be found between the parties

whereby immigration and race relations will be discussed every year.
The Government have stated that they wish to treat Commonwealth citizens as aliens. In my view, this overlooks a fundamental difference between the two types of entry. Basically it overlooks the fact that historically we have always treated people from the Commonwealth in a different way from people from a foreign country and have given them certain privileges. Commonwealth citizens come here for settlement. Aliens predominantly come here for temporary purposes. In recent years between 40,000 and 50,000 alien workers have been admitted annually on work permits. I want to return to this difference between work permits and employment vouchers.
In 1969 nearly 48,000 aliens came here on work permits. Over half of aliens on work permits leave within a year, and of the remainder, at the end of four years, about 10,000 only remain here in permanent employment. Those figures are readily available from information provided from the Home Office. Together with their dependants, the total number of aliens admitted to permanent settlement here had recently been about 20,000 a year. That is all that remains permanently from a total inward traffic which last year amounted to 4½ million people coming in for different purposes.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: A great deal of anxiety arises, not so much from the worker who comes here, but from the dependent relatives he is likely to bring here. In my hon. Friend's period of office, did the policy of the Home Office make any fundamental difference to family unity in the case of alien workers?

Mr. Rees: That is an important point. Perhaps I can deal with it at what I consider to be a more relevant stage.
By contrast, Commonwealth workers come here seeking permanent settlement and, although fewer workers are admitted, the total number settling each year, including dependants, has been between 50,000 and 60,000 out of a total inward traffic of less than 500,000. The two different systems of control reflect their different characters. The main difference between the work permit for aliens and the employment voucher for Commonwealth citizens is that the permit is firmly regulated by the needs of the labour


market and the voucher is issued only when it can be proved that there is no local labour available. But it is also basically a form of control of numbers coming here for settlement. That is implicit in the 1962 Act. Otherwise the numbers of Commonwealth citizens would be much larger because the numbers of aliens are, to a large extent, determined by the influences in the home market. Re-reading the reports of the discussions which took place in 1962, when I was not a Member, it seems to me that one of the arguments between the parties was whether it should be left to economic forces to iron out the situation over the years.
A simple change from vouchers to permits would mean either a great increase in the number of Commonwealth citizens entering the country or a great decrease in the number of aliens. There is no justification for this. As the Government seek closer relations with the European Economic Community, this projected course needs to be thought out far more carefully. Are the Government able to give us their view on what would be the effect on aliens with their permits or Commonwealth citizens with their vouchers if we went into the Common Market, and, in particular, what about the complication that E.E.C. nationals should have priority in jobs under Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome?
The proposed equation of Commonwealth employment vouchers with alien work permits will mean the limitation of the former to a specific job, employer, and place. But about 50 per cent. of employment vouchers are in category B, which are in respect of a particular skill rather than a job—such as doctors and teachers—where interview precedes appointment. Therefore, the alien registration system would bite only on category A vouchers for manufacturing industry, amounting to under 2,000 vouchers per annum, compared with 47,000 alien workers admitted subject to employment control. In view of the Government's own arguments about numbers, the change would not be worthwhile. Therefore, what case is there for making it?
In the Conservative Party manifesto the categorical statement was made that for the future work permits would not

carry the right of permanent settlement for the holder or his dependants. But work permits do not carry that right now. Aliens bring their families if they wish to do so, and they come in large numbers. In practice, there is no difference between the two. If there was an error in the Conservative Party manifesto and the word "permit" should be altered to "voucher", then, given the ease with which aliens bring in their dependants now, the same will apply to Commonwealth citizens. What, then, is the purpose of the proposed change?
Do right hon. and hon. Members opposite recall the statement made by the Prime Minister in his York speech that:
… to prevent a man's wife and children from joining him in this country leads to social problems in the community which place the burden of maintaining unwanted children on the local authorities. This, too, the city and borough councils recognise. The only way to prevent this is to allow the family to be reunited. After all, it is only common humanity to do so.
Numbers would not be affected by this change. What would be affected would be people's right to bring in their dependants.
If the 12-month rule were introduced for Commonwealth citizens, it would raise many practical difficulties. It may work for aliens but, as the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) will recall writing,
aliens are less mobile and easier to trace than a Commonwealth immigrant. The latter can become a needle in a haystack.
Certainly, on my experience, given the fundamental urge of Commonwealth citizens to settle, which I fully understand, I would not relish the resulting court cases and evictions which would occur at the end of 12 months or any longer period which is given. Given also the steps that have been taken quietly by the police over the years, the liaison committees in the provinces and the special Race Relations Branch at New Scotland Yard, the aim of which is to work with the new communities in this country, if the police are given other immigration control work to do of that nature, the slow community relations steps will be effectively halted.
The confusion of permits with vouchers—and they are different—occurs again in the York speech, when the Prime Minister said:
Permits for those who come to work in Britain will have to be obtained from the


British Representative in the country of origin.
That is the case now for Commonwealth A vouchers, the manufacturing vouchers. It is true in most cases for the B vouchers. Work permits for aliens are sometimes issued in this country if aliens have entered as visitors with no denial to the immigration officer of their intention to work. Would this right be given to Commonwealth citizens or, alternatively, if there is an equation, would it be taken away from the alien?
Health checks, so the Prime Minister said,
may be demanded before such permits"—
I presume that he meant vouchers—
are issued.
That is already done for voucher holders. The more one looks at the statements which have been made in the past, well-intentioned though they may be, the more one is led to ask the Government that when their full proposals are ready, we should have a chance to discuss them.
There is concern about the concentration of immigrants in certain parts of the country. When we debated this matter on 3rd July, I said that this could not be dealt with easily. My view, which I still hold, is that dispersal will be a pipe dream for a very long time.
The Prime Minister believes that the proposals of his party, when in opposition, will enable entry to be refused to any who propose to settle in the already congested areas of our great cities. The number of new arrivals on work vouchers in any one area is very small. In 1968, for example, the last year for which I have been able to obtain figures, 194 employment voucher holders entered for work in the whole of the West Midlands. What now matters more and more—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) feels this; we have discussed it—is not the new arrivals. It is the movements from, perhaps, the West Midlands to Slough, or from Slough to the West Midlands. There is a movement often in search of marginally higher pay, particularly when residence in an area has been relatively short and there is not the strength of staying in an area that there is with people in, perhaps, the more affluent West. What matters is the internal movement of those who are already here.
Again, in considering this proposal, the right hon. Member for Ashford said:
In theory (but not in practice) it would steer new arrivals away from concentration areas.
In opposition, it is possible to be theoretical. In government, one needs to consider reality.
Another proposal was the registration of students and visitors. I found that liaison with schools and colleges was good I was never made aware of any large-scale abuse. There was abuse in some private institutions, and most of those cases are in the hands of the police, but the Select Committee reported that the great majority of visitors and students were genuine and did not settle here illegally. That was certainly the advice that was given to me when I had a responsibility.
In general, the Government's proposals are misconceived. It may be that some of them are to dropped. Since the new Government came to power, I have sought to ascertain their policy. Before the election, the Prime Minister could say that
it remains an important part of our policy that those Commonwealth immigrants who wish to return to their countries of origin will be able to receive assisted passages from public funds. This should not be limited as at present to those who are destitute
Early in the life of the Government, on 23rd July, I asked the Prime Minister
which Government Department is responsible for the repatriation of Commonwealth citizens.
The reply came:
No such responsibility exists. Financial assistance to those who wish to return to their country of origin may be made available in special cases of need by the Supplementary Benefits Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1970; Vol. 84, c. 230.]
No change. In any event, the question of citizenship comes in on repatriation whether under the Supplementary Benefits Commission or not. I understand that under the existing citizenship law, anyone who has been here over five years may not have registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If such people were to take money to go out of the country, they could come back on the next boat because, as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, they would have every right to do so. Any children who were born here would have that right. I ask the Government, because


there is concern about it, what is their view now on repatriation?
In general, it may be that the Government have discovered weaknesses in control which need to be dealt with urgently. I was not made aware of any in this category, but certainly the previous Home Secretary acted from time to time on certain abuses under the heading of fiancées and children under the age of 16, for example. I was responsible—my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has stated this in the House, so I am not abrogating to myself delusions of grandeur—for the institution also of compulsory entry certificates for dependants—a necessary change, not to stop abuse, but to prevent human problems at the port of entry.
I notice that the analysis of the Select Committee stated that fears that compulsory entry certificates might prove an additional restriction had been shown to be unfounded. I can only hope that all those experts at the time who misread my motives and looked forward to the results have noted that. On the basis of declared Government intentions, no case for change has been made because of mass immigration. There is no lack of control.
A further reason for inaction at the moment, of which I was very aware, is the current implementation of the Immigration Appeals Act, which received Royal Assent in 1969. When is that Act to be fully implemented? On 1st July, the arrangement which we had made before the election was that approximately half of that Act had been brought into being to deal with people already in this country. I ask that question because we had taken on staff for the full implementation of the Act. It is important that we should know the Government's thoughts on this. Adjudicators and Tribunal members have been appointed and accommodation has been provided. Already, decisions are being taken by the adjudicators and by the Tribunal which are beginning to make a body of administrative case law, some of which has raised problems for the Home Office. In my view, before any piecemeal changes are made in the existing system, it is important to see the full results of the working of the Act.
It is not simply a case of closing loopholes revealed by decisions, but already there has been criticism of the two updated sets of rules, Cmnd. 4295 and Cmnd. 4298. In our view, there is no need for speedy action on immigration control. The time has come to look at the background to control and to the wider aspects of immigration. Our manifesto said:
We now propose to review the law relating to citizenship.
Over the almost two years that I was responsible for immigration control at the Home Office it grew on me daily that what is required is to look at the basis underlying the rules which have been built up over the years. This review of nationality and citizenship must be done on a Commonwealth basis. There must also be an investigation into the economic and—particularly—employment implications of immigration.
I am glad to see the Minister of State for the Department of Employment here, because just as citizenship is the basis of the books of rules so employment vouchers and work permits colour the use that we make of the rules based on citizenship. The whole question of nationality and citizenship is complex, as Lord Butler observed in 1962. Legal concepts, such as "British subject", "British protected person"—there are many of those in East Africa—"British subjects without citizenship", "allegiance", and so on, are not easy to define or to understand. The philosophy behind the question of nationality changed during the period of Empire, as former Colonies achieved Dominion status, and the British Nationality Act, 1948, was an attempt to equate nationality and citizenship with Commonwealth.
The immediate need for change was due to the nationality changes in Canada. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference of 1946 decided on an official investigation by Commonwealth experts under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Maxwell, then Permanent Under-Secretary to the Home Office. The British Nationality Act was based on that.
What is sometimes forgotten is the fact that each independent Commonwealth country was to have its own citizenship. Citizens of this country and the residual colonies were to be classed as citizens of the United Kingdom and


Colonies, and all were to be Commonwealth citizens. As Mr. Nicholas Deakin wrote in his perceptive article in the July 1969 issue of "Race"—an article entitled
The British Nationality Act of 1948: Brief Study in the Political Mythology of Race Relations."—
and this is the basis of our argument—
There are those who believe that this Act was the decisive event in the post-war development of the issue (immigration). The verdict on the consequences of the British Nationality Act must surely be that it neither accelerated nor delayed the introduction of control over immigration—rather, the Act determined the rather complex form that control assumed when it came.
I accept that view. It determines the form.
The 1948 Act introduced a new freedom of entry from the Commonwealth. It is because the Act determines the form of immigration control that there is need for another Commonwealth Conference on citizenship, and I believe that Singapore in January would be the right place and time for this.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman will agree that if the 1948 Act had not been passed and had not produced the change in our citizenship law that he has described, as each part of the former Empire became independent and republican, entrance, as it has occurred in this country, would automatically have fallen under alien legislation.

Mr. Rees: I know the great interest of the right hon. Gentleman in this subject, but I am not convinced that that is the logic of the Act of 1948, because the situation before it was passed was not firm enough, in law, to be able to deduce a clear concept of "British subject". In the Palmerstonian sense of the term, in my view—I am not a lawyer—it was capable of a very broad interpretation.

Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way again. Surely the case of Burma is relevant. That applied before the 1948 Act. Surely that made the point fairly clear?

Mr. Rees: In the sense that if the result had been after 1948 and all former Colonies had taken the steps that Burma took—if the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that that would have been the logic

of what would have happened, he is right. But my argument is that that is not necessarily what would have happened. I discovered that immigration control in each Commonwealth country is a matter for each Government. That view is strongly held, and any control suggestion would prevent discussion beginning. It is the question of citizenship and nationality that the Commonwealth should be asked to discuss.
Some interesting ideas on possible changes in the law of citizenship were put forward in the valuable "Colour and Citizenship. A Report on British Race Relations", published in 1969 for the Institute of Race Relations. As far as I know, that was the first time that anyone had put his mind to this aspect of the question in recent years. I see weaknesses in the analysis made in the book, but they deserve discussion.

The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Joyce Butler): Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not stray too far into the ramifications of the Act, because he may then become out of order.

Mr. Rees: Yes, Mrs. Butler. I am arguing that if the Government are going to seek a basis of immigration control it should be pointed out that immigration control is determined by the laws of citizenship. In the circumstances perhaps I should say that my belief is that the time has come to consider the laws of citizenship. I am under the impression that Canada is considering changes. It was Canada that sparked off the changes in 1946.
The other matter connected with immigration control is the question of employment vouchers for Commonwealth citizens and work permits for aliens. In my view the Government should reconsider this question from the point of view of labour needs. This evidence would be invaluable to a wider economic in vestigation. In 1965 the number of employment vouchers was reduced to 8,500, and the C voucher system ended. There are special arrangements for Malta and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
The employment voucher scheme and the work permit scheme need to be co-ordinated with industrial training schemes. Industrial training is part of


manpower planning. Are the numbers of vouchers fully co-ordinated with the needs of industry? A claim by employers, verified by the local Department of Employment that there is a shortage of local labour, is not enough. These permits and vouchers are part and parcel of immigration control. It is not enough just to ask the simple question whether there is a shortage of local labour. There are wider questions about the amount of labour being trained here.
Much of the evidence given on this point in the Select Committee—by London Transport, A.E.C. Ltd., Southall; and J. Lyons and Co. Ltd.—on 12th March, 1970, was of great interest in determining the number and scope of employment vouchers and work permits.
The use of foreign labour involved here—1 million-plus people—is no different from the 1 million-plus foreign workers in France, the 1 million-plus foreign workers in Germany and the far larger numbers in Switzerland, where two-thirds of the construction workers are foreigners. In this country, or in Europe as a whole, we are all busy working the employment voucher scheme and the work permit scheme—whatever we say about it—in the light of self-interest. Is it to the advantage of this country? Is it to the advantage of the relevant country in Europe?
Looking at the question of immigration policy, why is the B voucher scheme in this country so much more helpful to citizens from the Commonwealth? It is because we want professional and qualified persons, and are therefore bending the rules under the B voucher scheme. It would be more helpful to gear our intake to help the Commonwealth. Self-interest is very short-sighted, and the needs of rural Asia should have precedence over our needs. The terrible tragedy that has recently occurred in Asia illustrates the nature of life there. Yet we carry on milking that society of some of its best brains. There should be Commonwealth discussion on this as well.
It is in the context of employment vouchers that lies one solution to the need to increase the number of citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies—mainly in East Africa—who come to this country. We have greater obligations to this group than to Commonwealth citizens,

although we have great obligations to citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies in dependent territories who have been under control since 1962. Such a change can be made, without increasing overall immigration, by increasing the number of employment vouchers to East Africa. The fact that the special vouchers were not special but were the only vouchers had an effect on the young. I think three employment vouchers were used in East Africa.
There are rumours about citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies under the 1968 Act and I hope that today the Government will give us their views on this. I have also had representations about rumours that the Irish, who are neither Commonwealth citizens nor citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies, are to be brought under control, or at least that work permits—which I presume is the correct title since the Irish are aliens in law—are to be introduced for them. The whole question of employment vouchers and work permits needs to be reconsidered and not just reshuffled. Only when we have done that on the side of citizenship and on the side of vouchers can we get immigration control right.
When we do this, I hope that we shall be able to concentrate on what matters far more, namely, race relations in this country. From our side we offer co-operation and consensus and we hope that the Government in their new Bill will not reject this offer. I would like to think of us building on what happened in the last Parliament, and working together to get an immigration control system that meets the spirit of the words of President Kennedy, speaking in another context:
Immigration policy should be generous: it should be fair: it should be flexible.
I hope that the Bill from the new Government will meet that criterion.

5.54 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has made a most interesting speech covering a wide range. I cannot say that I necessarily agree with all he has said by a long way, but I appreciate the spirit in which he spoke. I share entirely what he said at the end of his speech about the need for everyone to work for the improvement of


community relations. I regard immigration policy as secondary to community relations; it is a facet of dealing with a serious problem that exists.
This debate is traditional in its form but differs from all the debates that have gone before because it is the last of the series, and that makes a great difference to our discussions today. Until now succeeding Governments and succeeding Home Secretaries have said that it would be a fine thing to get away from the annual renewal of Acts dating back to 1919 and to put the whole law about entry and settlement from other countries on a new, simple, unified, statutory basis. This is precisely what we intend to do, as we said we would. I shall, therefore, be presenting to the House of Commons within a few weeks comprehensive proposals to cover the whole question of entry and residence. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is right to do so and to get away from this annual situation which is not satisfactory. The Bill we are discussing today will have only a limited life. It merely holds the position until the implementation of our new comprehensive Bill which is based on the propositions in our election manifesto to which the hon. Gentleman very fairly referred.
It is not sensible for me to comment in detail on what the Bill will contain when it appears, for two reasons. First, it is more satisfactory for the House of Commons to await the actual proposals before debating them. Secondly, the proposals must be seen as a whole. They will be a balanced whole, designed for a permanent structure, and they should be looked at on that basis. To pick out particular aspects and discuss them now would only give rise to confusion. As the hon. Gentleman says, this is a complex subject and therefore I think it should be treated in the round and not piecemeal.
The hon. Gentleman said that because the subject was complex we should consider the possibility of a White Paper or a Green Paper. I do not think that this would be right. We have made absolutely clear what our proposals are in principle. We put them before the country at the election and they were accepted. The right procedure is to go ahead in the normal way with the Second Reading and to give plenty of time in

Committee to discuss this large and complex Bill. That is the most practical way for us to proceed.
The proposals will be based upon the passages from our manifesto which the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to read out. I confirm that this is what we stand by, this is what we intend to do, and we certainly stand by and regard as fundamental the sentence which he referred to about the right of a Commonwealth immigrant already here to bring his wife and young children to join him in this country.
I would like to say a word or two about the principles on which our policy should be based, and on which the Bill should be based when we lay it before Parliament. When considering the whole question of the admission of people from other countries, whether temporarily or permanently, our first concern must be for our own people and the health of our own society. That is not, of course, our only concern. We have moral obligations going far beyond this country, but we must look first to what is needed for the health of our own society. It would be no good to anyone in this country, including above all the immigrant population already here, if racial tension were allowed to grow. We have a very fine record of which we can be proud both in the matter of the admission of people from other countries and in our community relations. We must keep it so, and one of the conditions for keeping it so is to give people, particularly those in areas where immigrants are very numerous, confidence that the system of control works in practice. That is why I attach so much importance to the proposals in our Bill being seen in the round.
We have also a fine tradition of liberality in the admission of aliens generally, not merely Commonwealth citizens. This I am sure has been of benefit to this country over the years and has certainly been of benefit to the people who have come here. I want to see that tradition maintained, and I want to see the tradition of political asylum maintained, but we must at the same time recognise our obligations to our own people. Our own country, which is so attractive as a haven to many people from other lands, must be safeguarded and protected against the social tensions which are such a


sadly frequent feature of modern life in many countries. Those are the principles on which our legislation will be introduced. It would not be right or sensible for me this afternoon to discuss or argue about the proposals in the Bill which we have not yet presented. However, I wish to deal with some of the practical facts which may be of interest to the Committee in considering the practical problems of immigration control today.
In the last 12 months there has been an enormous increase in the number of people entering and leaving this country. I find the figures surprising. From 1st October, 1969, to 1st October, 1970, there were about 29½ million arrivals and departures, an increase of 16 per cent. on the previous year. This shows what a remarkable task the immigration services have to perform.
In the short time that I have been at the Home Office, I have been enormously impressed by the work they do, faced with a volume of traffic of this magnitude. Occasionally they make a mistake, but considering that they are handling 29½, million cases, it is not surprising that a mistake will occasionally occur. In any event, the appeals machinery is picking these up.
I pay tribute to the patience, understanding and sensible work of the immigration services in handling a problem which is growing in volume. This is particularly so with the arrival of people aboard, for example, Jumbo jets, which means that it is also growing in intensity.
The appeals system was introduced in the last 12 months, and although it has not been operating to its full extent, it is in being to a large extent. I think my predecessor was wise not to push ahead too fast with this system, simply because of the numbers, to which I have referred. We should, therefore, proceed as we have been going so that we have an opportunity of seeing how the system is working.
I have an opportunity, which I am taking in the course of preparing the Bill which I shall be presenting to Parliament, to look at the way in which the appeals system has been working. Hon. Members will, I am sure, take the opportunity when discussing this Measure to consider the working of the appeals machinery.
In coming to the question of Commonwealth entry, I am able to give the Committee the latest figures, and they are of some interest. The numbers of Commonwealth citizens admitted for settlement, excluding United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa, were down in 1969 to 36,000 from 53,000 the year before, a drop of 31 per cent. Dependants accounted for about 80 per cent. of those figures, and the decline in the number of dependants was greater—about 33 per cent.
We have the figures for the first nine months of this year, and they show that the total has fallen to 22,000 compared with 29,000 last year. The figure for voucher holders has remained about the same, but the figures for dependants has been reduced in the first nine months of this year compared with 1969 by about 27 per cent.
An interesting feature among the number of people using the employment vouchers is the increasing proportion of them being taken up by the old Commonwealth—Australia and New Zealand, for example—and the figures in this sector have roughly doubled between 1969 and 1970. There is this clear trend, but I do not know what the reasons are.
There seem to be three main factors and it is difficult to work out the relative importance of each. There is, first, the continuing effect of the marked reduction in the level of vouchers. Secondly, there is the result of the decision in 1969 to make entry certificates mandatory for dependants. This is having a continuing effect. The third is the question of the number of certificates issued which do not seem to have been taken up.
The hon. Gentleman referred to mandatory entry certificates for dependants and said—and I agree—that they were designed to facilitate the entry of people who are authorised to enter and not to create a new barrier. It has been working out very much as he said. The system of compulsory entry certificates is also working well.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is my right hon. Friend able to complete the figures for 1969 and the first nine months of 1970 by giving the statistics relating to East Africans, whom he expressly excluded?

Mr. Maudling: I have the figures, and the numbers are running at about the same consistent rate. The number of United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa was 732 in the first nine months of 1970. There were 16 employment voucher holders, 131 special voucher holders, 497 dependants and 88 others. Taking the absolute figures, I do not think that they are particularly large. As for compulsory entry certificates, we believe that this system is working well, and evidence of this is given by the fact that the number of people who have had to be refused entry is very much lower than it was.
There is a mystery which puzzled the Select Committee and which puzzles me. It is the fact that 38,000 entry certificates have been issued and that only 23,000 of them have so far been used. This is a problem which has baffled me, but since it also baffled the Select Committee, I have a good excuse for saying that I do not myself understand the reason for this trend.
I join the hon. Member for Leeds, South in saying how valuable it is to have the publication of the evidence which was given to the Select Committee and the analysis which has been done as a result of that evidence. Both the evidence and the analysis are of tremendous value to us in considering this whole matter.
I do not think the hon. Gentleman referred to a point which is of considerable importance on the social side, and that is the question of illegal entry or evasion. Obviously, if people enter illegally they will make our problem of community relations all the more difficult to solve. Some wild figures of illegal immigration have been bandied about recently. Naturally, I cannot give a figure of the number of people who have entered this country without my knowing. By definition, that would be difficult, to say the least. However, I do not believe that the numbers are anything like those that are often supposed.
Our means for dealing with illegal immigrants—those who come in in small boats or who slip through unnoticed—are, first, through the activities of the police, in co-operation with the Customs and coast guards and with the authorities of other countries. Secondly, we operate

through the machinery of the law; and I intend in the forthcoming Bill to deal with the question of penalties in this sphere of illegal immigration, particularly in respect of those who are making a profit out of trafficking in illegal immigrants, often at the cost of considerable human misery.
The third category is that of control, and here we have the problem of those who come to this country on one basis and then slip away unnoticed, such as the person who comes as a student and then disappears, never to be found again by our authorities. It is, of course, difficult to give an exact figure for this category of people, but if one compares over the period 1962 to 1969 the number of Commonwealth citizens admitted here for all purposes with the number who re-embarked, together with the number admitted for settlement, plus the few who had their conditions revoked, the totals, of about 3 million in both cases, are nearly the same, and this is the best evidence that I can give today.
It suggests that although there is a good deal of evasion of conditions of entry, the scale is nothing like what is sometimes suggested. Naturally, people who stay here in breach of their conditions are simply cheating on their colleagues. In other words, if they jump the queue by staying here, they are doing something which another person from their country of origin who follows the rules is not able to do.
We are, therefore, right, for the general maintenance of the credibility of immigration control, to ensure that those who stay here in evasion of their conditions of entry are dealt with suitably and are required to leave the country.
The hon. Gentleman referred to United Kingdom passport holders. I ask him not to believe rumours, even in the most respectable newspapers—especially in relation to Ireland. I have learned that already. I agree that there have been some rumours about United Kingdom passport holders, but I have no announcement of policy to make on this subject today.
I have told the House previously that I am considering this very serious problem. In this connection, I will do what I rarely do in the House, which is to quote from my own speeches However, in


1968, during the passage of the immigration Bill of that year dealing with the question of United Kingdom passport holders—it was my view then and it is my view now—I said.
There is no doubt about the rights which these people possess. When they were given these rights, it was our intention that they should be able to come to this country when they wanted to do so. We knew it at the time. They knew it, and in many cases they have acted and taken decisions on this knowledge. I am certain that there can be no going back on those simple facts. Equally, there can be no doubt about the problems that can, and will, be created if the rate of immigration goes ahead too rapidly, a problem just as serious for the immigrant communities as for the rest of us. I believe that this country has handled the racial problem well … but even here there is bound to be a flashpoint. Let us make no mistake about that. There is bound to be a flashpoint somewhere, and if the flash occurs everyone will be burned, and probably seriously burned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1345.]
That was how I saw the problem then and that is how I see it now. Hon. Members on both sides will realise the complex factors. This is a tragedy in the true sense of a clash not of right and wrong but of right and right.

Mr. Bidwell: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that when we look at the British Commonwealth as a whole some very special considerations apply to the East African States. Therefore, should not one of the earliest items of business of the new Select Committee be to look at this aspect and come to a considered judgment, perhaps even sending a sub-committee, as was done in the case of Pakistan, Cyprus, India and the West Indies, to appreciate the realities of Africanisation and to make consequential recommendations on that basis?

Mr. Maudling: I shall not now comment on that proposal, interesting though it is, but I may tell the Committee that I welcome wholeheartedly any helpful advice on this very difficult problem.

Mr. John Hunt: My right hon. Friend commented on the fact that so many existing vouchers are not being taken up. Would he not accept that this state of affairs gives him some flexibility in dealing with the very special problem of the East African Asians to whom we have this very special obligation?

Mr. Maudling: I have heard that interesting argument advanced, but the concern here is the actual and not the possible rate of arrival. Incidentally, the figure I gave of United Kingdom passport holders was for September, not for the year.
I think that I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised by the hon. Member, save with his argument about what was wrong with proposals we have not yet produced—

Mr. Norman St John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend alluded en passant to citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Are we to take it that the right of entry to the United Kingdom of citizens of the Republic of Ireland will not be affected by forthcoming legislation?

Mr. Maudling: It is difficult to deal with that matter now because we are dealing with a Bill of very short duration indeed. I have resisted the temptation to argue about the provisions of the Bill before it comes forward, but I know that when it does come forward it will be considered in an atmosphere designed to help towards a solution of the problem of community relations of which that subject is a necessary adjunct.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Although the right hon. Gentleman stressed the importance of immigration control I was disappointed to hear him put community relations in the second position. Both are equally important, as I hope, on reflection, he will agree. He has told us that the Government intend to introduce legislation, so we now have an opportunity to comment on how the present controls are working and to consider whether changes are needed.
British immigration policy and practice has been the subject of much criticism in recent years. Some people believe that the controls are too restricted, and cause hardship to genuine applicants. Some have suggested that they are enforced harshly, unfairly and inefficiently. On the other hand, there are those who believe that too many Commonwealth immigrants are being


allowed in, that the controls are too liberal and that there is too much evasion of them.
The Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration sought to examine these criticisms and to ascertain the facts. As a result, more facts are now available than in previous years. The Committee studied all aspects of immigration control, and we regretted that it was not possible, because of the General Election, to produce a full and considered report. However, reference has been made to the publication to which the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and I contributed. The thanks of the Committee are due to the Runnymede Trust, which asked us to prepare this analysis and summary of evidence.
I want also to thank the officials of the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Employment and Productivity, and other witnesses who came before the Committee for their very willing help. It is pleasing to see present now so many who were members of the Select Committee. I am personally grateful to them for the way in which they applied themselves to our work. It was one of the best committees with which I have had the pleasure to work in what is now a long parliamentary experience. I know that the Committee would wish me also to thank the Clerk of the Committee: we could not have had better assistance than we had from him.
Our inquiry enabled us to get both the home and the overseas facts, and I now have an opportunity to give some personal views. Immigration controls should be fair and efficient to ensure that those who have a right of entry face as little difficulty as possible on entering; and that there is no evasion. Fair and efficient controls ensure the confidence of both immigrants and the indigenous population, thus making for good race relations.
In any future policy there is need to preserve three features of the present policy, and this should present no difficulty as the three main parties have already accepted them. The first concerns the right of entry of a certain number of Commonwealth citizens for settlement here. Second, once they are admitted they should have the same rights and responsibilities as other Common-

wealth citizens. Third, those who are admitted have a right to send for their families.
At present we limit, by the employment voucher system, the number of Commonwealth citizens coming in. Because the numbers wishing to come here exceeded the number of vouchers, a rationing system became necessary. The present rationing system is based on possession of valuable skills, those of professional people, such as doctors, whose services we want. We give priority to those who have jobs waiting for them. We thought that the system seemed to be working both fairly and efficiently: fairly, because it gave equal treatment to all Commonwealth citizens of all races; efficiently, because we found that the waiting lists and delays had been considerably reduced.
The immigrants possess a very wide range of skills; they are by no means all unskilled peasants. Many of us know this from what we see in our constituencies and in the country. Many hospital services would break down and many of our transport services would be badly manned without these immigrants. We found little complaint from employers about immigrants. On the contrary, in the main we found satisfaction. If there was a complaint from employers it was about the working of the employment voucher system. The main complaint was that the stricter controls meant that only about half of the 8,500 vouchers a year that are available are used.
Perhaps the Home Secretary, in his consideration of this matter, is contemplating a re-allocation of unused vouchers. If so, let it be remembered that the United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa are British citizens to whom we owe a special duty. By issuing them with United Kingdom passports we promised them that they could come to Britain. In any reallocation of vouchers the claims of these British subjects should be considered.
Consideration should be given to the claims of those from the Commonwealth who have traditionally looked to Britain as their home. In this category I think especially of the West Indians.
Any proposal that immigrants with employment vouchers should be restricted to certain jobs and certain places for a period is neither fair or efficient. It is not fair because some would be allowed


to stay and others would be forced to return to their country of origin. There is a danger of discrimination here. As British subjects, they all ought to have equal rights. They should not be treated as aliens. New immigrants would be uncertain of their future. They would not know whether to bring their families or leave them behind. It would cause difficulties, anxieties and untold trouble.
It would be inefficient to restrict immigrants to certain jobs for a given period, because economically it would not be to our advantage. Economically we want mobility of labour to get the best service possible. It would be costly to check that immigrants did not change jobs without permission. It would require an elaborate system of registration and inspection. Anyhow, this would be alien to Britain and could be a dangerous precedent.
There would be the difficulty of identifying new immigrants and distinguishing them from earlier immigrants. Earlier immigrants would be allowed to change jobs without permission. All of this would encourage the evasion of controls, to say nothing of the difficulties of finding and deporting those who were not allowed to settle here. The Home Office witnesses before the Select Committee said that to try to restrict immigrants to certain jobs for a given period would be costly to enforce and, even then, likely to be ineffective or would be harmful to community relations.
The present system for the control of entry and settlement of adult workers appears to work reasonably well. The numbers now entering are small. For these reasons, I think it better not to change the system. I have no doubt that a change would upset the Commonwealth and it would upset the confidence of the immigrants here; and all for no good reason.
In the earlier debate the Select Committee which was then in being was asked to consider the entry certificate system. The Select Committee thought—I think I can speak for all my colleagues who are present—that this system had been justified. Much depends upon the appointment of sufficient good entry certificate officers overseas.
We saw some entry certificate officers at work in overseas countries. We

watched them interview applicants. Where there were good officers, the system was both efficient and fair. The entry certificate system has eliminated the tragic and damaging practice of turning away women and children on arrival at British ports. Once an entry certificate is granted, dependants can come to Britain without difficulty. The result has been far fewer detentions at London Airport.
By far the largest number of immigrants coming to Britain today are dependants. The original reason for these immigrants coming here was that employers wanted them to do particular jobs. Many of these men came over with the knowledge that they could get employment and get some security and then bring their wives, children or other dependants to join them. It would be wrong to deny men who have made a contribution to our economic development the opportunity of having their families join them.
Ninety per cent. of applications by dependants are granted. That is a very good thing and shows that there is not fraudulent behaviour on the part of the majority and that the entry certificate system has not proved a further restriction on the rights of dependants. For those who have not been successful in entering there is an appeal system which affords them some protection. I repeat that the system is efficient because cases are more carefully considered by men on the spot rather than at London Airport.
We were told that the vetting of applications overseas is also a more effective way of detecting bogus dependants, but both fairness and efficiency depend upon having a sufficient number of entry certificate officers of the right quality, of the right attitude, and with the right training and experience. On our visits we found that some entry certificate officers appeared to have insufficient understanding and inadequate knowledge of the customs, conventions and family patterns in the countries in which they had been called upon to work. There is a need for better training to ensure sympathy and understanding as well as skill in handling cases.
We recognise the speed with which the entry certificate officers had to be recruited and the pressures there are upon them. There is a need for more staff in


some places to reduce delays and facilitate more training. It is invidious to pick out anyone in particular, but we were all agreed that some officers, judged by any standards, were outstanding.
The Home Office itself appeared to be responsible for some of the delays in considering the granting of entry certificates. Whatever the reason, there is certainly a need for a speedier consideration of cases which are referred from overseas territories to London.
However fairly and efficiently the scheme is administered, some genuine dependants will still have difficulties. Some do not have the necessary documents. They have to undergo an oral examination. It must be acknowledged that there are many bogus relatives. We saw families being examined at length and in detail about their private affairs, and children being examined without their parents being present. Many were clearly genuine, but they were puzzled, frightened and dismayed by their experience. We concluded that this had to be done because of attempted evasion, and, as so often happens, the innocent as well as the guilty had to suffer.
There are some problems arising on the rules governing the issue of entry certificates. I want to draw attention to one or two which struck me particularly. The two-parent rule is hard on West Indian mothers. They want their children to join them. There appeared to be many cases of real hardship. A general direction to entry certificate officers that they should deal with these cases most sympathetically would be useful.
Then there is the system of arranged marriages in Pakistan and India. This, too, causes problems. I suggest that genuine fiancées might be admitted a little more freely, either for marriage or for settlement—in the case of settlement by granting an employment voucher.
The entry certificate system for controlling the entry of dependants operates fairly and efficiently in most of the places which we visited. It could be made to do so everywhere. There must be the right staff in sufficient numbers to achieve this. They have a difficult and delicate task. The Home Office staff generally deserve our thanks for their humane and sympathetic handling of the most difficult problems of immigration.
We ought not to be panicked by Commonwealth immigration. We have a long tradition of absorbing strangers. That is how our nation has been built. If we maintain fair, efficient and flexible controls, if we work hard to improve community relations among all who are now here, I think we have nothing to fear.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has reminded the Committee that this is the last of these annual debates which will be taking place. As so often happens with a temporary institution, it has proved to have a substantial value—as an opportunity for survey in many directions, of which already in this debate all who have taken part have availed themselves.
Indeed, it would be absurd if we were to conduct this debate in the light simply of the events and the figures of the previous 12 months, since these are dwarfed by the past and even more by the prospective future, and since it must be in the light of that prospective future that we judge what is happening now and form our views on policies for the future.
Nevertheless, I want to begin by looking at what has actually been happening in the last few years. The impression has been widely given and frequently reiterated that there has been a steady and rapid decline in immigration from the New Commonwealth. This is not so. I accept, of course, the importance and interest of the figures of voucher holders and their dependants, which have been referred to already by right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches; but for the future of our population and our society to which my right hon. Friend referred the significant figure is net immigration from the New Commonwealth.
This, of course, would not be so if net immigration were somtimes positive and sometimes negative; but in the actual situation, in which net immigration is constantly and substantially positive, it must be the figures of net immigration year by year which are of the long-term significance. I need not labour this point, because the authorities themselves, the late Government, and I dare say their present successors, in contemplating the future size of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population, have always


used net immigration as the relevant factor.
Net immigration this year, despite the impression which was given month by month by announcements and articles in the earlier part of the year, will not be down on 1969. In fact, I can tell my right hon. Friend—breaking the rule about never using the future tense—that net immigration in 1970 will exceed net immigration—from the New Commonwealth of course—in 1969. By August—my right hon. Friend has the benefit, which I have not, of the September figures—the net immigration total had already almost reached that for the same point in the year in 1969, and it was, as he well knows, in the latter part of 1969 that the fall-off in that year took place.
What we are seeing this year, as last year, is a net immigration of between 40,000 and 50,000. It is true this is lower than the very much higher figure, including United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa, of 75,000 or thereabouts in 1967 and 1968. But it is a reversion to the approximate levels of the mid-1960s.
The true picture, therefore, is that net immigration from the new Commonwealth ran during the middle 1960s around 50,000 a year on average it jumped in 1967 and 1968 to a much higher figure; and it has fallen back last year and this year to the approximate level of the middle of the last decade.
I have no doubt that the legislation which my right hon. Friend will introduce will substantially further reduce net immigration, but the immediate point which I want to emphasise is that there is no such large, continuing, downward trend in the figures of net immigration as would justify us in loosening control, and, indeed, that we shall look to the new legislation to achieve a sharp reduction in what hitherto has been the normal level of net immigration under the previous legislation.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. If this figure of net New Commonwealth immigration—which I think is the precise point—differs, as the right hon. Gentleman says, from the figures which have been given from the two Front Benches referring to the vouchers and to the dependants, and his figures are therefore greater,

would he help me by explaining what groups of people make up this difference?

Mr. Powell: Yes. Naturally, what is happening for the most part is that those admitted initially as students, visitors or in other ways eventually remain in this country, as well as those who are initially admitted for permanent settlement. Therefore, I repeat, while the figures of those initially admitted for permanent settlement are interesting and significant, it is the net figure—in minus out—year by year which builds up the future population and to which we should look when we pay attention to the future.
Each year that we have this debate one can measure the change in outlook, and even more the change in information, which has taken place during the previous 12 months. There have been striking changes in information during these last twelve months. We have learnt what we did not know 12 months ago—how the official estimates of the rate of natural increase of the coloured population compare with the facts.
May I pause here for a moment to say that I am using the word "coloured" purely for brevity, as a circumlocution for a definition consistently used in these statistics by the authorities and by the Government namely, persons born in the New Commonwealth, not of European descent, and children, born here, one or both of whose parents was such a person born in the New Commonwealth. I think the Committee will appreciate the necessity for having some brief expression for so complex, though I believe agreed, definition.

Mr. Bidwell: There is also the person born in the New Commonwealth area who, in fact, is white and who came here to settle, although by the right hon. Gentleman's definition we call him coloured because he came from the New Commonwealth.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) was not listening. From this definition, which I am using exactly as it is used by the authorities in computing the future population, there are excluded what are sometimes called "White Indians", that is to say, persons of European descent who were themselves born in the New Commonwealth. These figures exclude, or endeavour to exclude,


those persons and their children born here.
We were able, as it so happened, to compare the previous Government's estimate of the rate of natural increase of that coloured population with the facts in the year 1969. There is no question here of projections of the future. We are comparing what the Government thought was happening in 1969 with what we know was actually happening in 1969. What we discovered was that the Government's belief was a gross underestimate of what was actually happening. I remember very vividly, in the corresponding debate last year, the face of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), then the Under-Secretary, when I told him that their figure was an underestimate. But I confess that when I told him that I had no idea how severe an underestimate the official figure was. It was believed that the net increase in the coloured population in 1969 was 30,000, obtained by deducting 5,000 deaths from 35,000 births. In March 1970, we learned from the publication by the Registrar-General of the figures for the two middle quarters of 1969, that the true figure for births was at least 50 per cent. greater than the Government had believed.
Since then, two further pieces of information have become available. We have the Scottish figures—for it was a Great Britain estimate—for the first quarter of 1970, which throw some light upon the figure for Scotland. We also have some facts—the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was good enough to supply me with them—for deaths, which indicate that the estimate for deaths was substantially too high, that probably the relevant deaths were something like two-thirds of what had been assumed in the official estimate. These adjustments bring the figure up not to 50 per cent. but to 66⅔ per cent. above what the Government at the time believed.
But that is not all, because the calculations themselves embodied a number of underestimates; in particular, they certainly underestimated the coloured element in illegitimate births. I need not trouble the Committee at length with the calculations which underlie that conclusion because I laid them in a paper before the Institute of Population Registration in May of this year, and that paper is

available in the Library of the House. But we have now, as we had not hitherto, the fact that the coloured population of this country is increasing much faster than had been officially believed. It is increasing at a rate something like 75 per cent.—that is a modest assessment—faster than was believed.
This is an immensely significant figure. There are three factors in any such assessment. The first is the rate of net immigration. There, there is no difficulty, because the facts are available year by year. The second is the base figure which was taken in arriving at the 1969 estimate. The third is the rate of natural increase. It follows that hitherto either the base figure—the number of coloured persons already in this country at some previous date—or the rate of natural increase, or both, have been severely underestimated. It follows by the same token that all official projections for future years have to be revised, have to be revised drastically, and have to be revised upwards.
I should be the first to admit—here I find myself in entire agreement with the hon. Member for Leeds, South—that, large though the eventual total figures in the Kingdom may be which are implicit in the revised official estimate for current numbers and rate of growth, it is not there that the dangers, to which my right hon. Friend referred, to the future health of our own people and society primarily lie. They lie in concentration. They lie in the effects in areas where a large proportion of the total number is concentrated.
I noted with entire agreement what the hon. Member for Leeds, South said: "Dispersal is a pipe dream". Indeed it is. Much the contrary, as the numbers increase, so far from dispersal of the coloured population occurring, what we shall see—what indeed we are seeing—will be the outward movement of the indigenous population, which will necessarily accelerate the growth in the coloured proportion, and all the consequences of concentration.
In this debate last year I drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that it was possible, within fairly narrow limits of conjecture, to form a reliable picture of the future make-up of the population in a number of our great towns and cities. I pointed out that this could be done, without relying upon


theoretical assumptions over long future periods about intake and birth rate, because we already had in existence the facts of the size of the coloured population up to age 15, and therefore by a projection of births for a further 10 years, which only allows of a certain play and argument one way or the other, we were already in possession of the facts about the size of a whole generation of the coloured population, wherever the figures for births during the last five years and for the school population were available. I then, and subsequently in the paper which I have already mentioned, took in detail the figures for Birmingham, in order to show how much we already know about the future of these towns and cities.
Where the first five years of the generation are concerned—the births of the last five years—the facts are available in cities like Birmingham which have kept the figures for many more years past than the last five. Unhappily, the figures for the schools have hitherto been provided in a form which for this purpose is totally misleading and, indeed, dangerous; for the definition applied in the count organised by the Department of Education and Science is such that one counts only children who arrived from the New Commonwealth within the last 10 years or children both of whose parents arrived from the New Commonwealth within the last 10 years, with the grotesque result that a school where the coloured proportion is constantly rising can appear in the statistics as one where it is constantly falling, as the 10-year rule cuts out one section of children after another, and the same children are counted one year but not the next.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is to be congratulated on having at last decided that this basis shall be altered. She tells me that from January, 1972, there will at last be instituted in the schools a true count; that is, a count on the same basis as the figures which we are, by common consent, discussing. In view of the importance of having these facts, I hope that she will impart sufficient urgency to the change to bring it about in January, 1971, so that in a year's time we shall have the actual figures of the coloured population in the schools. At

present, one is faced with the necessity of adjustment.
Working with the Birmingham figures, I arrived at the conclusion, which I argued in detail, that eventually one-fifth of the population of Birmingham would be coloured. I have to confess that I was guilty of an error. It was not an error of fact or of calculation; my facts and calculations were accurate. It was an error of judgment. When I said that one-fifth of Birmingham would eventually be coloured, I presented a result into the calculation of which there had been built a whole series of most grotesque underestimates.
I assumed, for example, that there would be no further immigration at all. I assumed that there would be no emigration from Birmingham or from the country as a whole. I assumed that the rate of reproduction of the coloured population would be exactly the same as that of the indigenous population, an assumption which, so far as I know, no one has seriously made when working on this question. Thus, what I was presenting was not a genuine attempt to arrive at the likely future of the City of Birmingham. It was a grotesque underestimate, by which, I confess, I sought to protect myself against being accused of exaggeration.
I was wrong. I ought not to have given currency to a figure which so little represents what is to come. I ought to have taken my courage in both hands and told the country and the City of Birmingham what was my judgment as to the probable—not the grotesquely improbable—minimum proportion of the coloured population.
Fortunately, my fault has been made good by others. A gentleman in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Southampton, Mr. Clifford Thomas, has studied in the Journal of Biosocial Science the future make-up of the population of this country. He did it on the basis of the figures adopted before it was known how wrong, how low, the official estimates were. He took the figures which, broadly speaking, were used in the book to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South referred, "Colour and Citizenship". Moreover, he was working on a definition of the coloured population more restrictive than the official one.
Mr. Thomas instituted a series of careful studies and calculations, on various assumptions both as to rate of increase and as to inflow, to arrive at estimates of the make-up of the population in future years. He se this estimates out from one extreme to the other, but he made clear what his own view of the probability was. He said:
By the year 2000 3 million to 4 million"—
that is, of coloured population as defined by him—
is all that seems likely".
In arriving at that figure for the year 2000, he was roughly in line with a number of projections and estimates which have been made by a series of academic workers on this subject. Indeed, I think it might almost be said now that 3 million to 4 million is the orthodox figure for the coloured population at the end of the century. Mr. Thomas then went on to see how, on those same assumptions, the situation in Birmingham would develop, having for Birmingham, as I have reminded the Committee, a series of birth figures which made such a calculation possible.
The Committee will wish to know what the result was. The Committee will wish to know what was the calculated future make-up of the population of Birmingham which corresponded with, and used the same projections and assumptions as what I have ventured to describe as the orthodox estimate of 3 million to 4 million in all for this country at the end of the century.
On that basis and in correspondence with that estimate, Mr. Thomas arrived for Birmingham at an eventual—by "eventual" I mean in the early years of the next century—at an eventual coloured population of between ½ million and ¾ million. Thus, even if the total size of the City of Birmingham is assumed to have grown by then to 1½ million, the proportion of the coloured population would be not one-fifth but two-fifths or one-half.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), in a most interesting and helpful article which was published today, concluded by imagining what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might say on this subject at the

next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in January.
His message to them
my right hon. Friend wrote, might be that,
having secured a relative breathing space, the United Kingdom, in its own interest and that of the Commonwealth, proposes to consolidate".
We now know, unless we refuse to know—we now see, unless we refuse to see—what "consolidating" means for the City of Birmingham. Indeed, for the reasons which I mentioned earlier, when we talk about a Birmingham which will be one-half coloured in the early part of the next century, that is unrealistic—in the sense that, before that proportion was anywhere near reached, there would be an outflow of indigenous residents which would send the proportion up more rapidly still. That is the future of their city which the people of Birmingham face; and the calculation, the reasoning, the prospect, is a corresponding one for other towns and cities, from Inner London to—let us say—whichever town one likes to choose in the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The right hon. Gentleman paints a horrific picture but says not a word ever in his speeches, not a word in his speech tonight, about those who are here. Would he say something about community relations? Would he say how those people are to be given a message of tolerance by the people of this country?

Mr. Powell: What does the hon. Gentleman think I am talking about but community relations? What does he think is implied in a Birmingham one-half coloured but the future of our society? What did he think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary meant by the danger to our society in the future? This is the very essence of the matter of community relations, and those who blind themselves and blind their fellow citizens to these facts do the gravest crime—

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Powell: I will not give way. I will finish. Those people do the gravest crime not only to their fellow countrymen but to those immigrants in this country whose interests they profess to have at heart.
The question which has now to be asked, which cannot any longer, now that we have thus much knowledge, be burked is this. Is this the future which the people of Birmingham want for their city? Is this the future which the people of this country want for this counrty? But before that question can be asked, let alone answered, something else has first to happen.

Mr. Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance in a moment.
We can no longer pretend that we do not know. Authority can no longer pretend that it does not know. The truth must be told. The Government must tell the people the truth—they must do it themselves. The people have the right to know. They must know.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I shall make only two comments on the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). First, with the exception of his last few sentences, in response to interventions, we listened at least to a cool appraisal of what the right hon. Gentleman understood to be the situation. There were no rivers of blood running through the Chamber. That sort of language is apparently kept for the halls outside. It was a welcome change. This is a subject which we should be prepared to discuss at least on the level at which the right hon. Gentleman conducted the greater part of his speech.
But the right hon. Gentleman's technique of building up the figures as he went through was most interesting. An assumption which was made very early on and was explained to us after the intervention of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) very quickly, a few sentences later, became an established fact. The phrase "grotesque under-estimate" was used constantly as though that had now been established by the mere assertion of the definition which the right hon. Gentleman himself used.
If the right hon. Gentleman is to base so many of his conclusions and facts and researches on the figure of net increase in immigration, he must explain to us

why he differed so strongly from both the previous and present Administrations on the figures of immigration that they gave. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he has a duty to the House to explain and not just to make that assumption. Is he really saying that the number of students and the like who come in will settle in this country in large numbers and that the Home Office and the police forces are in grave dereliction of their duty because those are people who should not be staying here but are? Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that as a significant factor in the immigration figure, or is he merely picking out from the statistics the fact that we have a large and possibly growing number of people coming here from the New Commonwealth for higher education?
If that is the fact that he is asserting, then of course no one will contradict him. It is self-evident that with the development of independent nationhood in the New Commonwealth throughout the 1960s, and particularly with the increased demand for higher education facilities, it may well be the case that the number of people wanting to come here from the New Commonwealth for higher education of all kinds will be on the increase. But it is wholly wrong to include that figure in the figure of immigration for settlement and then build up a series of hypotheses on that.

Mr. Powell: Then why did the Registrar-General choose to use that figure for making his calculations for the future? Why did he not use the figures of those admitted for settlement? Why did he use net immigration?

Mr. Steel: I shall leave the Government, who are responsible for the Registrar-General, to answer that. What I am saying is that the right hon. Gentleman cannot simply take a figure for students and the like and assume—that is the basic assumption which he has made—that they must be included as part of the permanent population, a permanent part of the scene. That is where the fundamental disagreement lies between the right hon. Gentleman and successive Home Secretaries.

Mr. John Biffen: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on this? It is not a question of the argument that my


right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) might have with successive Home Secretaries. It would seem to be an argument between those like the hon. Gentleman—and presumably he is not implying that the Front Benches agree with him—and the Registrar-General, because it is the Registrar-General that is taking the figure of net immigration. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Registrar-General is guilty in making his projections?

Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman is a faithful disciple of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He has just made precisely the same point as the right hon. Gentleman made in his intervention a moment ago.

Mr. Biffen: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question?

Mr. Steel: I have not answered it. I did not answer when the right hon. Gentleman asked. I am not here to defend the Registrar-General. I am questioning the assumption made by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to make the comment that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in his logical way has put his mind to the figures, and now the right hon. Gentleman's friends are suggesting that the projections which he is using for 20 to 30 years' time are those of the Registrar-General, whatever process the Registrar-General uses? I recall very clearly that after the changes that were made on the new assumption of fertility rate during last year the disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman's projections and those of the Registrar-General was still very great, so that although the right hon. Gentleman points out an error it would not be right to say that the Registrar-General's projections are those of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was arguing this, but I think that his hon. Friend was.

Mr. Steel: I want to move on to the general matter of the debate and to return to a point made very early on by the hon. Member for Leeds, South on how we are to conduct the debate on

the new legislation which the Government promise. I should like the Home Office Ministers to reconsider very carefully whether or not we should have a White Paper or a Green Paper in advance of the Bill. The debate has got off to a very good start, and I hope that we might continue the debate in this spirit when we discuss the legislation. But it is not good enough to expect other bodies, whether other political parties or bodies outside the House interested in community relations and immigration to submit a critique of what should be the new Government's policy based simply on a few paragraphs in the Conservative Party manifesto. My party would very much like to have in advance of the actual legislation a much clearer statement of intent in detail on the very complicated problems which we face in immigration.
The Home Secretary said that it will be a large Bill. It is almost bound to be, and I make no criticism of that. All the more reason, therefore, why we should have an authoritative Government publication in advance. Although I accept the generosity of the Home Secretary's remarks about Amendments in Committee, I think that the Government always feel themselves to a certain extent to be restricted once they have actually produced a Bill based on their own thinking. It is much easier to make representations to the Government in advance of a Bill being published.
I want to turn to a particular aspect and not discuss immigration in general. Only passing reference has been made to citizens of United Kingdom origin. Nothing has been mentioned at all so far in the debate about the problem of dual nationality—of the people throughout the world, estimated at possibly 3 million, who have citizenship of this country and citizenship of another as well. I have lone, regarded this as an anachronism and I presume that it will disappear under the new legislation. But I raise it in the context of the future of United Kingdom citizenship because the whole subject of dual nationality bedevilled the question of what we should do with the United Kingdom passport holders in territories overseas.
The House will remember the agonising debates of 1968, when the then Home Secretary talked about 1 million people


who had the right under previous legislation to come to this country. By the time the then Bill went to another place that number had been inflated to about 2 million. It is essential to have a clear statement of what is to happen to the status of dual nationality and whether the problem is to be tackled.
Then we come to those who do not have dual nationality but have our citizenship for historical reasons, good or bad. We cannot rewrite history. This applies particularly in the East African territories, and the latest figures we have are that there are 150,000 of them—90,000 in Kenya, 40,000 in Uganda and 20,000 in Tanzania, while no doubt there are some in other territories.
How many of these are waiting for applications under the terms of the 1968 Act for the 1,500 annual vouchers? The figure was given in evidence to the Select Committee on Race Relations in May this year of 7,000 people waiting in the queue for vouchers. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham gave a figure of 9,000 last month. Assuming that these are 9,000 individuals applying for vouchers, in terms of the numbers in families, then presumably about 36,000 people are waiting in the queue to get vouchers to exercise their rights of citizenship to come to this country. Despite the fact that I am talking about numbers in the queue, the queue is defined as being composed of those who have been called for interview at the British High Commissions and there may well be others who have made application or who wish to apply but do not appear in the official figures of those who are at present waiting for vouchers.

Mr. David Waddington: Surely the important matter is not so much how many people are in the queue but how long one has to wait. Can the hon. Gentleman give any guidance as to how long a time normally elapses between a Kenya Asian applying for a work permit and his being admitted to this country? In my experience, only a few months elapse.

Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman may well be right in some cases. I understand that a quota is given out more or less monthly. In some cases, it may indeed be a very short time. The criterion is

need and not length of time in the waiting list. It must be a very difficult decision to make. I understand that some people are lucky and have to wait only a few months. But the hon. Gentleman is wrong in trying to suggest that that is typical of the picture, because unfortunately many have waited a very long time—not months but years, if I may warp a now emotive saying in the House.
I have seen in letters, which have been widely made known, circulars from the High Commissions in the territories concerned stating, last June, that the application has been considered but the High Commission is not yet able to give a voucher. The same circular has gone out to the same individual in November. So the average wait is not just a question of a few months.
This brings me to the problem that separates citizens of United Kingdom origin from the other citizens of the new Commonwealth or anywhere else. I am devoting my speech to this problem because it is important not to lose sight of this distinction in the legislation to come. I was a little disappointed because, although our hopes had been perhaps unwittingly built up outside, the Home Secretary had no announcement to make on that question.
The main reason why some of us are still concerned with the matter is precisely the wait to get here and the hardship this causes. These people are applying for vouchers to come here because they have been deprived of their right to work in the territory in which they are living. It may be possible to criticise the Governments concerned for the speed with which they produced their internal legislation which has had this side effect, but it is not really possible to criticise them in principle because they are doing what we have always done—that is, regulating the employment of non-citizens and the amount of time during which they may occupy positions in those territories. In developing economies it is understandable that this policy has been pursued, although it is possible to criticise the rate at which it has been brought into being.
The result is that these people are deprived of their right to trade or of their appointments and are left resident in those countries with no income and no means of subsistence except the capital they have accumulated. Some of them


were fairly well off. Some were quite wealthy traders. I remember well the particular sections of the city of Nairobi where very substantial homes and properties have been built by this affluent section of the community. But that was a minority.
The great majority were ordinary wage earners or small business men who have been severely afflicted by the fact that they have had their means of subsistence removed but have not been able to get out of the territory and exercise their right of citizenship to come to this country.
The basic reason why I ask for this matter to be treated separately is the direct personal hardship caused to people to whom we have an obligation as a result of the 1968 Act. If hon. Members wish further details, there is an excellent report produced by the Rev. David Mason of a recent visit to Uganda. I saw the beginnings of this hardship myself when I visited Nairobi and went among the community concerned eighteen months ago. It has accelerated greatly since then. In one or two cases not only has destitution resulted but people have been sent to gaol because they had ignored instructions to leave the country. But they were unable to leave the country because no voucher had been given. This is a matter for the conscience of the House. It is a separate question from the general one of immigration as a whole.
The previous Home Secretary used to tell us that he hoped that no one would encourage persons in that situation to jump the queue. No one would, but let us be honest about it. If we were placed in that position ourselves, with our means of livelihood taken away, and saw our bank balances drop and drop and ourselves dependent on the charities which exist and which have done a great deal to help, would we not be tempted to leave the country, as we would be legally entitled to do, and enter the shuttlecock process? I understand that since the 1968 Act more than 1,000 people have endured the shuttlecock process of being moved over to this country and then back to and round the airports of the world.

Mr. Ernie Money: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the gravest risks is the rising tide of bitterness among the young, who are

losing their chances of education because of the decreasing assets of their families, who will eventually become citizens of this country as of right, but who will come here in the most bitter mood?

Mr. Steel: That is true. There is not only bitterness of mood, but if eventually we are to take these people in any case it is preferable that they should be able to bring with them at least the minimum amount of money to establish themselves in the community here, so that we do not have to take into our community thousands of paupers whom we have created paupers.
Not only have we caused this hardship to these individuals, but we have damaged some of our relationships with other countries who have been involved in the shuttlecock process—the Swiss, the Dutch, the Germans and the French, who have all been involved in having these people sitting around at airports. We have entered an obligation with India which has been most helpful in agreeing to take numbers of these United Kingdom citizens into its territory on the understanding that they will be allowed to come to Britain if they later wish to do so. I understand that that agreement has not always been honoured in the letter as it should have been, and the result of that has been some friction between ourselves and the Government of India, as well as with European Governments.
A further reason for reconsidering the whole matter is that what some of us predicted in 1968 has happened and we have been found to be in breach of the Declaration on Human Rights, of which we are a signatory. We have lately been before the Human Rights Commission and I understand that the case has been referred to the courts. It has been clearly declared, as some of us said it would be, that our legislation of 1968 runs completely counter to the basic right of the citizen and as such is not defensible. The hon. Member for Leeds, South uttered a sentence which I wrote down. He said that citizenship must be the basis of our law. I could not agree more. The trouble is that we ran counter to that principle when we passed the 1968 legislation.
I hope very much that in the immediate future the Government will agree to an increase in the 1,500 vouchers which are now allowed. But not even such an


increase will be adequate when the Bill comes forward. Even an increase from 1,500 to 2,500 will enable only a slight alleviation of the hardship which we have created. The Home Secretary said that the numbers of immigrants had fallen from 53,000 in 1968 to a figure which I have projected from nine months of 1970 to the whole of 1970 at approximately 29,000, a reduction of some 24,000 in the two years. With that sort of reduction there is scope for a considerable review of the policy which has been pursued since 1968.
The figure of 150,000 is the total conceivable commitment, not all at once but over a period. It must be remembered that many of these people will continue to live and work in East African territories because, as with our immigrant population here, they hold jobs which are valuable to the territories. There is therefore no question of their having their livelihoods removed, and of those who remain many have expressed the desire to go to other countries, such as India, and they are prevented from doing so because no other Government is prepared to accept them into its territories so long as we do not acknowledge their basic right to come to his country.
My last plea, therefore, is that in considering the Bill the Government will pay special attention to the problems of these United Kingdom citizens, problems which we have ourselves created.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I shall comment later on what the hon Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said about the Kenyan Asians, but I should like first to revert to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
We now have three matter before us—the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which is a mere device by which we practise the debate; the Bill which will shortly be forthcoming and on which the Home Secretary was very reserved; and the projections offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
I will say of my right hon. Friend's calculations and projections that I have the greatest respect for my right hon.

Friend as a statistician and I respect the calculations which he makes. As he did me the honour of quoting one passage from something I wrote on the subject, I hope that he will also acknowledge that in the same article I agreed with him that the books were not what they appeared to be. That is an important fact.

Mr. Powell: Yes.

Mr. Deedes: The accounting system, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) knows as well as I do, is deficient. Unless the new Bill can provide us with a more satisfactory basis for accounting for those who are here, those who are coming and those who are going, leaving out those who may be here in the year 2,000, the Bill will be on a false basis.
I accept that, as some of us on the Select Committee discovered more than a year ago the change in calculating the number of immigrant school children in the country was inexcusable. There is never an excuse for obscuring from ourselves the facts of the case. Put at its lowest, these figures are needed to provide the authorities particularly concerned with the problem with the materials upon which they can ask for the requisite resources. If we for our own reasons, and not very good reasons, obscure the true figures, leaving aside the calculations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, we directly harm the authorities carrying most responsibility. Unless the new Bill incorporates some better way in which to calculate these figures, the truth will be obscured and policy will be vitiated. In that sense, I entirely accept the tone in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spoke.
I appreciate the Home Secretary's view that there was not much which he could say before the prospective Bill appeared. On the other hand, there is a certain amount which hon. Members can usefully say before this prospective legislation is finally drafted. We are not to have a White Paper, perhaps understandably, and therefore this is the last rehearsal before the Bill appears, and before the final touches are given to it we should make one or two comments.
I wish my right hon. Friend the best of luck with the new Bill if we are to


fulfil our undertakings. Some evidence came to us—and this is now recorded and I am therefore entitled to quote what was said to the Select Committee—that my right hon. Friend's own officials saw great disadvantages and difficulties in the proposals. They were reserved about the advantages, but rather more explicit about the disadvantages. They may have changed their minds, but it would be foolish to conceal from ourselves some of the difficulties which the proposed scheme entails.
The longer I work in this subject, the more I become convinced that the gap between theory and practice is wider than with most other aspects of public policy. Between what may be hoped and what is actually attained there is often an alarming difference.
Let me take one practical example. The effective control of all aliens and immigrants entering the country resides at Princetown House. There we have a central traffic index and all the landing and embarkation cards, amounting to 5½ million each year with half a million Commonwealth immigrants. The cards are tiled and matched. We have been trying for six years to get this enormous register on some sort of computer, but I am informed that we have failed. We shall have to do better. No single system of control with the numbers involved will be feasible with manual methods such as those which are now employed.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Gentleman is right—no doubt he was involved in this in the Administration before last—but it is not just a question of finding a computer which will take the information: it would need a regiment of civil servants to prepare the forms to feed into it, at which the mind would boggle. So it is more than techniques; it is bodies as well.

Mr. Deedes: I know about the difficulties, but if, as I believe, implicit in this policy is the need for more exact accounting, the difficulties must be overcome. We cannot lie down and say that we cannot account for this. Somehow, we must.
There is another difficulty which our unified proposals may offer. It is readily, I think wrongly, assumed that under a single system of control we shall have the effect of tightening up on Commonwealth immigrants, because the control on aliens

is more rigid. But this is not necessarily so. The conditions may be more stringent, but the categories in many instances are less stringent for aliens than for Commonwealth citizens.
For example, children of aliens are admitted up to 18, children of Commonwealth citizens up to 16. But parents of aliens are admitted up to 60, parents of Commonwealth citizens up to 65. So there are areas in which unifying the system will confront us with the need either to tighten up on aliens or to relax on Commonwealth citizens. That should be clearly understood before we accept the premise that a unified system necessarily means stricter control of entry.
If we accept that, then we are going in for a series of very difficult differentials. We must have at least four differentials—aliens and Commonwealth immigrants of the past, up to vesting day of the Bill, aliens and Commonwealth citizens of the future, when the Bill comes into operation, which will present certain difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dwelt on the weight of numbers and the weight of traffic, and referred to these 29½ million people, including our own citizens, who move in and out of this island every year. I am sure he is right to weigh that heavily in our new proposals.
I have come to the general view that our present system of external control, even with the entry certificate—with the introduction of which the hon. Member for Leeds, South had a lot to do—has a limited life. Some of us have seen this system working in the countries of origin. I would follow the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) in paying tribute to the many officials whom we have abroad who are now trying to make the entry certificate system work. Their numbers are also formidable. The machinery which is needed in the various countries to implement this proposal, although it is an improvement, is pretty ponderous. It may be said that the weight of this machinery may taper off as numbers fall, as they may, if, say, fewer dependants come and need entry certificates.
If we check the figures of Commonwealth entry for 1969—this matter has not yet been referred to today—we find that one sort of movement is being replaced by another. The long-term traffic


for entry may or may not be in decline—it may be equal to 1969 or just below or just above it—but the short-term traffic for entry for periods of up to six months is increasing rapidly. This is hardly surprising, since if we have 1 million,1¼ million or 1½ million immigrants here, their links with their country of origin mean that this traffic must increase. We must accept that funds will be available for such movement.
In India last year, for example, short-term visits were double the total number of voucher holders and dependants from that continent. It was 22,000 visits of under three months, compared with just under 10,000 from all India. That figure bears very close inspection for more than one reason. We shall find it increasingly hard to run a viable system, which means a just system, on the present lines. The people of this country would resent and resist a means of internal control such as other countries use, which would involve identifying everyone. I am not dwelling on this, but such an internal system carries at least one advantage; the immigrants know that it is universal and that it cannot conceivably be discriminatory.
It is also arguable, of course, that the real distinction between immigrants is not whether they are aliens or Commonwealth citizens, whether they are black or white, but whether they have come for temporary or permanent residence. Here, I would take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, because my findings on visiting the countries that these people come from are that the intention varies very widely with the country under discussion. For example, the intention to settle is much stronger in India than in Pakistan. The hon. Member for Leeds, South and I have had some experience of this. The number of male breadwinners from Pakistan greatly exceeds the number of those from India, and many of these intend to have a temporary stay here, to win what fortune they may, and then perhaps to return. This is a very difficult future to predict; yet it is one which is most relevant to any calculations for the future such as my right hon. Friend undertook today.
I understand that it is our intention to make some distinction of this kind, because our policy says that for the future work permits will not carry the right of permanent settlement for older or dependants. So we shall have two classes of immigrants—those who are here and those who are to come. The old will be free and the new will be tied. That may present certain difficulties. Without very elaborate machinery, the concept of the tied immigrant will present us with considerable difficulties. Some say it works for aliens. It does, because, with small exceptions, they do not concentrate as Commonwealth citizens do, and they are much easier to trace. However, that is for the future.
Bluntly, I am convinced that the A voucher in its present form must go. There is nothing to be said for a system which brings in indiscriminately unskilled labour, unable to speak our language, often unable to read or write. Small though the numbers may be, this is not conducive to good race relations, and those who know most about it in this field accept that tacitly, even if they do not declare it publicly.
On the other side of the coin, we shall have to revise priorities for whatever the equivalent may be of the B voucher. I will not rehearse the muddle about the doctors, but there has been a muddle. From 2,000 doctors a year from India—a matter on which some of us protested a year or two ago: my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) certainly made a speech on this not long ago—we have dropped in the first eight months of this year to the astonishing figure of 350. That, of course, is because—I believe rightly—the former Secretary of State for the Social Services put a stopper on it, but his stopper was at 2,000, and we have fallen to 350. That is why many of our hospitals are suffering unexpected difficulties.
For the future, of course, we can limit the period of training here, but what we cannot do is determine that these immigrants, when trained, return to their country of origin. The loss to India will still be as great even if we limit their time here for training, because they may well move elsewhere. No immigrant training here can be tied to returning to his country of origin. I doubt whether these conditions could be met.
I do not want to rehearse the arguments about Kenya Asians, only to ask two questions. Have we formed an impression of what the effect will be if we raise the quota on the internal policy of the African countries concerned—Kenya, Uganda, Zambia and Tanzania? Would any concession here be followed by an intensification of Africanisation policy? It is very difficult to quantify, but it is a crucial question in the context of our debate. We are dealing with a very large number of people in terms of any policy which might be intensified against them. That is something which the Committee must bear in mind.
A most esoteric point is this: does the undertaking which we gave to India to accept residual responsibility for these British citizens in return for India's readiness to take British citizens of Indian origin forced out of Asia still stand? That undertaking is an important integral part of the bargain we are discussing. The Committee would like to have, if possible, an up-to-date account of how matters stand with India.
I am sure—and here I differ from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—that the Government, in their new Bill, will have to take increasing cognisance of the pattern of settlement here. The situation is disturbing and, I believe, dangerous. We are talking not of ghettoes to come but of ghettoes which already exist in some areas. By that I mean the intense concentration of Commonwealth citizens in an area with no one else there at all. It is not simply a matter of housing programmes; it is a matter of industrial dispersal. I take issue with my right hon. Friend here. I do not share the view that industrial dispersal is a pipedream. Dispersal of people is, but, as we have found since the war, it is industry which holds the whip hand. Industry determines where people move. People will go to places where jobs are to be had. This has been proved by our own well-intentioned and often thoroughly defeated town and country planning policy.
If there is to be dispersal, it must be industrially oriented. That is the only chance. It cannot be controlled by legislation. A great industrial effort will be needed if it is to happen. That means that discussions must be held with employers and the T.U.C. about what contribution they can make.
Are we ready to think on these lines? To me, dispersal is the key to racial peace. We have totally neglected this subject since the movement began. If we neglect it any longer we shall have cause bitterly to regret it.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It is always a pleasure to follow in debate the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) whose knowledge of and work on this subject, particularly in the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, are well understood. His words of wisdom tonight should be heeded by those on the Government Front Bench.
I have already expressed in an intervention in the Home Secretary's speech my concern about the East African Asian problem, and some of us put our names to an Amendment to the Bill which, if accepted, would have meant that we would have had a separate discussion on the 1968 Act. I understand why the Amendment was not called.
This problem has caused widespread anxiety throughout the country. There is a great spirit of fair play in Britain, particularly among the indigenous working class population, as I suggested in my speech on this Bill last year. This is a section of the population which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) does not really understand. If he did understand it he could not present this problem as a simple equation of black and white. I have never met an intelligent worker—not the occasional writer of obscene anonymous letters which we get from various parts of the country, although very seldom from people in our own constituencies—who simplifies the problem as being one of the pigmentation of the skin. This is the fundamental error in the calculations of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

Mr. Powell: I have repeatedly said that if we were facing a similar growth in an alien population which was not coloured the problems would be as great and might even be greater.

Mr. Bidwell: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the indigenous population is not conscious of immigration save in small pockets. It is a question of


an identification of colour and immigration. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is the way in which most people think. As with all system of logistics, which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is very skilled in presenting in this Chamber on this and other matters, there must be some truth in what one is saying in order to gain a hearing, otherwise one is simply laughed to scorn. I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman on economic matters and military conjecture and I find that his system of logistics makes a great deal of sense up to a point. But his calculations on this subject reduce the matter to an absolute absurdity.
The concern is not about colour at all; it is about social squalor. The average working class person is concerned about a reduction in his standard of living, over-crowding of houses, and pressure on the social services in certain parts of the country.
Changes are taking place, and it is right to draw attention to the changes in content of population. There is a totality of concern about the changing nature and composition of the nation. But we must be concerned not only about people who come here to work to gain a livelihood, from wherever they come, but about people who want to leave this country and make a livelihood. There cannot be an absolute ban on people coming here if we value our kind of society, and there can never be an absolute ban on people leaving the country. That is attempted in some countries, but they are not societies of the kind which we admire or hope to sustain in this country.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has it wrong. He has spoken of his great concern about the numbers of coloured people in this country, which are tending to recede. With regard to the impact which he had in the sensation-seeking speeches which he made outside the House of Commons, my score sheet in participating in debates on this admitted problem and the question of immigration and community relations is better than his. If he starts off on the wrong foot, he is not likely to travel the right road.
In the areas of coloured immigration concentration there is a continuing

anxiety, as, of course, there must be. I have asked Questions in the House, and I have exhibited that anxiety that equal opportunities should present themselves to a great number of my constituents who are doing lowly-paid jobs—which determine how and where they live—that they should have opportunities to go into new town areas and opportunities consistent with their abilities and the skills that they acquire in this country. I wanted them to get a fair crack of the whip.
That was why the Race Relations Act, 1968, was passed and why, when I first came to the House, not thinking that we needed it, because of the stories of gross discrimination against coloured people which, I thought, were extremely dangerous, I ended up by supporting that gentle enactment of conciliation, because I wanted to see a development by which we moved away from the ghetto.
I must say to the right hon. Member for Ashford that "ghetto" is really the wrong term. I wrote a letter to The Times. I left school at 14, and in so far as I have had education, it has been in the trade union movement. I looked up the word "ghetto" because it was used so frequently and in a colour context. People would speak of coloured ghettoes. I can think of more white ghettoes than coloured ghettoes in Britain. Strictly, of course, the word "ghetto" stems from "borghetto", which was a Jewish concentration in Italy centuries ago. As many of my hon. Friends on both sides who are Jews will know, Jewish ghettoes were wards or parts of cities which people could not leave. They were not only a concentration of people of similar religion and ethnic origin; they were areas from which people could not get out. Strictly speaking, that is not the position at which we have arrived in Britain.
If this is the great concern of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I am equally concerned. No less concerned am I about this problem, because Southall is my birthplace and the man who has no feeling about his birthplace has no soul. In my constituency, the indigenous population are still numerically greater than the people of Asian origin, although the right hon. Gentleman drew attention some time ago to the position in the old Southall borough, which is not the whole of my constituency. There


is no Southall borough today; it is part of the London Borough of Ealing, which, in percentage terms, has fewer coloured immigrants than other boroughs. However, most of the immigrants of the London Borough of Ealing are concentrated in my constituency. They are still a minority. They are still a minority of the voters and a minority of the Labour voters. Obviously, I was astride a bridge, as it were, during the 1966 General Election campaign, and during my membership of this House I have necessarily been up to my eyes and ears in the problem the whole time.
I do not see the future and the general consequences in the light in which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West sees them. I heard him become fervent and passionate in seeking to chop down my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) in a most indignant way, but he soon lost that frenzied part of his characteristics.
The right hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the problem has been seen to be absolutely false. If one asks children about colours in classes at school, they are unconscious of the colour or the pigmentation of the skin of the children next to them. They are conscious of whether other children have a long nose or other physical features. They are sometimes conscious of cultural attributes and the like.
We cannot drive a thin line between immigration and community relations problems. They are tremendously intertwined. If, however, we are to discuss the problem intelligently, we have not only to identify statistically as the Department of Employment and other inevitably must. As I said reluctantly before the Race Relations Select Committee, if we are anxious about where coloured people are in this country, where they are working, where they are educated and whether they are receiving their fair share, one must have certain labelling in order to do it, and I do not know how one can have statistics without labelling. I agree with the Chairman of the Race Relations Board that statistics are neutral. It is the way in which they may be used that makes the difference. This is an inevitability, because we have the identification of social squalor and

second-class citizenship with colour. Already there are signs that it is fading.
I have described the general problem. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and his many friends who dote on the problem should pay attention to some of these words. They must agree that I know something about the problem. I describe it as a moving escalator. It is very slow moving, but it is moving in an upward direction because so many people have got used to each other.
As I said a year ago, I do not know how one can have this obsession of like or dislike on the basis of the colour of a person's skin. It is right to identify correctly population trends and the movement of people in and out of this country, and in that sense the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has stimulated much closer attention to the problem and, to some extent, a much greater degre of accuracy. He then goes on, however, to speculate.
Figures do not only reveal: they also conceal. There is an old story of Southall, that years ago, before there was a coloured face in the place, there was a burst of population because in the summertime the engine drivers had to blow their whistles when passing through Southall station. I was a railway worker at one time. They would blow their whistles, often early in the morning, and wake up everybody round about. The suggestion was that on summer mornings parents were woken very early and this led to a serious increase in the population of the district. I cannot tell whether that still applies and how far the Asian and the few West Indian and Pakistani people in my constituency are likely to multiply. I cannot put a figure to that. I would suggest that parents usually come round to the conclusion that a family is nice to have but a big family is not, and it seems that the general social habits concerning family size usually prevail. Consistent with the ages of parents, however, there must obviously be a bigger ratio among immigrants, and it is, therefore, correct that 60 per cent. of the children now born in the old Southall borough are coloured.
I am not concerned about the colour of those children. Some Indian people are near white and others are of different hues. I am concerned about their health


and whether they will get a decent opportunity in our country. Some of their parents still wear turbans and saris, but the children are Cockneys. If one asks them whether they are British or Indian, they sometimes say both. Some say that they have no desire to go to India. Others ask me what India is like, because I have been to India in recent years and I know more about it than they do. I am able to tell them what the countries of origin of their parents look like.
I now move on to the realities of the immigration control system. The Home Secretary has necessarily not been very forthcoming because he has not yet presented the new Bill on immigration. It means a movement in the system of Commonwealth immigration control towards the system of alien control. I share many of the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Ashford. It is no accident that my arguments run along lines similar to those put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), who was Chairman of the former Select Committee, and the right hon. Member for Ashford, who was vice-chairman of that Committee.
I ask the Government to pay particular heed to this consensus because I thoroughly endorse the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that this is a matter not for consensus politics or consensus party politics but for national consensus. There is no better place to achieve that than in discussions of this kind, in such a debate as this and in the proceedings of the Select Committee which is endeavouring to discover the facts. As I hinted in a speech on procedure in the presence of the Leader of the House, the Select Committee found that the C.B.I., the T.U.C., the officials from the Home Office and those from other Government Departments had no enthusiasm for the kind of change that proferred in the Queen's Speech and in the Tory General Election programme.
I ask the Government to think seriously whether we can have a system of virtual direction of labour based on colour. There will be no citizens' rights as in the case of aliens, because only after four or five years will full citizenship be achieved. When these matters were brought up

before I recollect my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asking, "If you had had a worker here under the new arrangements, I assume that you would not wish his family and his children not to join him. I assume that you agree that family unity should be preserved. If, after 12 months—or even six months—that man's employer said that he did not want him any longer, would you ship him out with his family?"
In all the circumstances the Government should delay bringing in their proposed Measure. It seems that they are delaying it in any case—that the sheer logic of events is tending to delay its introduction. Although many Tories at the General Election said that this was a matter of great urgency we are apparently not to have it until after Christmas.
I believe in unification, provided it is on a liberalistic basis. We have not yet wound up the Commonwealth. If we enter the Common Market it could happen that Continental workers could enter this country more freely than Commonwealth citizens, because we would not be able to impose restrictions on them. We obviously do not want to end up in a position—because we would have to give equal treatment to white Commonwealth citizens as to black Commonwealth citizens—in which we were restricting New Zealanders, Australians and Canadians much more than workers from the Continent.
I do not apologise for the time that I have taken. This is a question of work pattern and employment opportunity. Everything else stems from those factors. We have to get this right, including the possibility of more people coming from Kenya. In a debate in 1968 I said that this could prove a blessing in disguise, because there are now generally higher educational attainments, greater skills and a greater degree of capital ownership—although perhaps the last has faded drastically, as suggested earlier by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). Perhaps we should have done more about that. We ought to have been able to do it within the compass of the 8,500 vouchers. That is why I did not vote for the 1968 Act.
I do not know whether immigration and community relations go together. The Minister in charge of immigration is a


member of another place. I have met him and I have a great respect for him. I have a greater respect than previously because I have discovered that he was in the minority in the other place who voted against the 1968 Act. I hope that the Government will heed the words I have used tonight and those which I have used in an article which will appear in the Race Relations Institute Journal in December, which will accuse the Government of putting the cart before the horse by their proposals to make a fundamental change in the law on immigration before allowing the Select Committee to make an expert examination of the situation and perhaps make recommendations for the future.
I am concerned about immigration movements. I am concerned about social squalor. I am not concerned about colour. I have many coloured friends and I have many white friends. If I lived in Birmingham and had two coloured friends and people bandied about the sort of figures that we have heard today I might get three coloured friends out of it, or perhaps even four. But if I did not get any white friends out of it I should be seriously worried. I hope that we can work this out. I believe we shall do so, because I have tremendous faith in the ability of the British people.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Perhaps it would be wise to recognise, first, that there is a close relationship between immigration policy and race relations. Only when the public feel that the immigration question is settled will they accept the need for more effective race relations policies.
That point has been recognised by successive Governments. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) told the Select Committee on Race Relations that part of the improvement that had taken place was due to the recognition by people that the numbers of immigrants were more under control. If that point is accepted, the control of immigration is a question that assumes crucial importance. It should persuade us to take seriously any alleged defects in the system or in the enforcement of the system and to look carefully at the kind of immigration which is permitted.
I know no more than anyone else about the extent of illegal immigration. All the publicity goes to the boats that are bringing their loads of would-be immigrants to the shores of the South Coast, but the chief danger must come from the bogus visitors or students coming to the airports or seaports. Our defences against illegal immigration are centred upon the point of entry, the airport and the seaport. This places a very heavy responsibility on the immigration service. I have looked at the immigration service at London Airport and I add my tribute to the efficient and humane way in which that service works. But no one pretends that this system is foolproof. The trouble with having defences on the border is that the checks inside are fewer, and this certainly happens in Britain. One trouble is that there is no problem in an illegal immigrant finding a job.
This raises large questions which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) touched upon. The changes that he was discussing would require the deepest consideration, but one thing which could be done would be to extend the time limit on prosecution, which stands at six months. I see no logical reason why someone who has successfully evaded the police for six months should be immune from prosecution although he would not be immune from deportation. I welcome what the Home Secretary said about putting teeth into the new Bill to deal with illegal immigration. On whatever scale illegal immigration occurs it does a great deal of damage to community relations, it arouses suspicions and it is extremely unfair to people who have entered the country legally.
The number of A and B vouchers has now fallen to 4,000 a year, although it should be remembered that the entitlement that goes with these vouchers brings up the number to between 15,000 and 20,000 a year. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I have the greatest doubt about the value of this immigration, particularly the immigration on A vouchers.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said in his evidence to the Select Committee on Race Relations:
In some ways the A voucher is a hangover from the days when there was free entry. I do not think we are trying to do positively


anything very much in this field. There are some territories where the A voucher has a significance, for example in Barbados, but in relation to such problems as the need for employment for India it is clearly a drop in the bucket and is meaningless.
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman did not go on from there to argue that the A voucher should be abolished, but that argument could be put with a great deal of force. The only value of A vouchers is that they act as a symbol, but I cannot see much meaning in them in practical employment terms. It is reasonable to wait to see what are the Government's proposals and how they affect this point.
A rather disturbing memorandum was put to the Select Committee on Race Relations by the British Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay. This showed that out of 100 who came to Britain on A vouchers in 1969 half could not speak any English. Admittedly, one is dealing with a small number there, but this raises a serious problem of race relations. Although it is small in a national sense, it has important local effects, and I urge my hon. Friend in winding up to pay attention to that point.
There is one issue regarding the law in practice which might have an effect upon race relations, and that concerns the police. In view of the criticism that has been made of the police, it is worth saying that anyone who has studied this matter will agree that the police are making an outstanding contribution. They are doing so mainly by their traditional function of impartial enforcement of the law, and they are doing so at times in spite of considerable sniping from the flanks.
I will give an example which received a great deal of publicity. On 6th August concern was expressed about relations between the police and the coloured people in London. In particular, a statement was made by Mr. Jeff Crawford, a well-known West Indian leader, which received extremely wide publicity. Mr. Crawford said that unless something was done it was possible that a policeman or policemen might be killed. He added, according to The Times of that date:
It is the training a copper gets that makes him behave the way he does. He becomes a kind of human robot.
This remark again received a great deal of attention. It is no exaggeration to

say that it aroused concern and indignation because of the way in which it was said. What is so extraordinary is that only a year before, in April, 1969, Mr. Crawford had said something entirely different to the Select Committee on Race Relations:
One area in which a lot of progress has been made in the field of police/immigrant relationships.… In my opinion the Metropolitan Police are the most progressive section of the white community in this country in the field of race relations. Not only have they been listening, they have been learning, they have been implementing.
This is a most extraordinary turnabout. Even if one accepted that there were differences between areas of London, this quite patently has nothing to do with training, because the training of Metropolitan Police is exactly the same for all areas. Such statements are not only irresponsible; they are unfair to the police. We should recognise that the police have a very important part to play in community relations, and it is vital that no gulf should develop between coloured people and policemen. This places a responsibility on immigrant leaders and on the Home Office in what it asks of the police.
I am concerned about the capability of an immigrant already here to maintain some dependants who want to come, and whether the right kind of accommodation is available. I understand that what are called home circumstance inquiries are still carried out mainly by policemen. This is a job which is inappropriate for policemen and, quite unnecessarily, brings them into potential conflict with immigrants. In view of their other responsibilities and importance in community relations, I should have thought that this job could have been removed from them. I appreciate that there are difficulties in finding others to do the job, but the Select Committee had evidence before it to indicate that the immigration service had set up local offices and that local authorities were considering taking over this work. What progress has there been in relieving the police of this job?
I conclude as I began, by emphasising that the policies on immigration and race relations are closely related and that, therefore, the scope and effectiveness of the immigration controls should be the subject of very serious study indeed.

8.20 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) that race relations and immigration control are closely connected and that the sort of policies we have on immigration control will determine the type of race relations we build up.
I noted with interest the Home Secretary's remarks about race relations now being one of the central issues of community relations. I was disappointed therefore to read a Written Answer today in which the right hon. Gentleman said that no extra money would be allocated to the Community Relations Commission for the United Nations year against racial discrimination in 1971. I hope that hon. Members who wish to see good race relations established will press the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind.
The Home Secretary and others have said that we will have an opportunity, either later this year or early next year, to debate the Government's proposals for an overall immigration policy. It is difficult to comment at this stage about what is likely to flow from that policy, although a remarkable amount of information has already appeared in the Press.
I have said consistently that one of the biggest tragedies in this country began with the 1962 Act, because whenever we have discussed immigration we have tended to talk of it almost entirely in the context of colour. This has been a mistake. It has led to the unfortunate situation in which most people in Britain believe that every coloured person is an immigrant and that every immigrant is coloured.
The Government are taking on a task of monumental proportions in trying to work out a unified immigration policy. Naturally, we must wait for their proposals. However, I thought that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) put his finger on it in his interesting speech. When this matter was discussed during the last General Election it was not said, certainly in my constituency, that the Tories might be liberalising our immigration policy towards Commonwealth immigrants. The right hon. Member for Ashford rightly pointed out that many of the conditions applying to the entry of aliens are more liberal than those

applying to some people from the Commonwealth.
For example, aliens' dependent elderly relatives may come in five years younger than their counterparts from Commonwealth countries, although those from Commonwealth countries have an expectation of life which is usually shorter than that of aliens. There are also somewhat easier rules applying to settlement for dependent children, dependent fiancées and so on. However, Commonwealth immigrants have an overriding advantage in respect of permanent settlement.
Exactly what was said during the last election? Were we told that there would be a new policy which would reduce the number of coloured immigrants coming in? That was certainly the impression given in my constituency. However, if one is to have an overall policy, one must remove the ceiling applicable to the number of people who may come in from the Commonwealth. And if the ceiling is removed, that could mean an increase in the number of coloured immigrants.
If that is the intention—and I do not think for a moment that it is—we can consider the matter further. But if it is not, and if the ceiling is to be kept on, it cannot be an overall policy. I appreciate, however, that we must await the announcement of the policy. My only comment at this stage is that, considering the history covering alien and Commonwealth entry, it will be extremely difficult to arrive at a policy which brings a degree of equality to all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) spoke of the work voucher system and said that it could not be controlled from the point of view of sending people to work in certain areas. The idea that immigrants could be channelled to certain areas was put in my constituency by my Conservative opponent, who I am glad to say was not successful. It is said that if one could stop people taking jobs on work vouchers in towns which already have a high percentage of immigrants one would stop the flow of immigrants identifiable by their colour to those areas.
In my constituency we have a large number of immigrants who are identifiable by colour, plus a large number who are not known to be immigrants because they cannot be identified by


colour. Indeed, only 16 people from India, Pakistan and the West Indies received work vouchers in 1969 for Slough. This proves that any policy of trying to channell people via work permits is a non starter. One cannot control the area in which people go to work because it is clear that people go to, for example, Slough, because there are jobs there for them.
If one finds it disagreeable to have a large number of coloured people in an area—and I personally do not—then what the right hon. Member for Ashford says has some relevance, for one must persuade industry to move out, not merely because the areas in which industry is established are overcrowded, but because a number of areas could do with and would probably welcome new industry going to them. It would also help to persuade people not to live in overcrowded communities.
The more industry moves out, the more the problem of race relations will be solved because people generally will have a higher standard of life, particularly in relation to housing. I trust that I have said enough to show that to try to control this problem by the work voucher system is a non-starter.
What about the so-called ghettoes? I believe that hon. Members who have said that it is unlikely that we shall get dispersal to any great degree over the next few years are right. However, it is important that there are no artificial barriers to dispersal. We must not, by whatever policies we may have, prevent people moving throughout the community. Some of the areas in which there are real social difficulties suffered from them before ever the immigrants went there, and in them one needs to do something to improve the social fabric. That is why the urban aid programme, which deals with areas of social difficulty, was a step in the right direction. I hope that we shall built on it. The problem in Harlem is not that the people are black, but that they are deprived and desperate and happen to be black. That is what makes the problem there a problem connected with colour, although it is really connected with social opportunity and deprivation.
What we have been discussing is not so much immigration as race relations. Even if we stopped immigration tomorrow

we would still have speeches of the kind we have heard from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who, I am sorry to see, is not now with us. He talks not of immigration but of the colour of the people who are here today. That is the crux of the matter.
That is one of the tragedies of people who are hung up on this colour thing. In 1962—and in fairness to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West I must say that he was not making that sort of speech then—people said that there were too many immigrants and that their numbers must be reduced. The next thing was that they must be stopped from coming at all. The next stage was that they should be sent back—

Mr. Ronald Bell: Did the hon Lady say that we stopped them from coming?

Miss Lestor: No, I have just been giving the sequence. The last stage is that we say they should be sent back because they are having black babies. Black people cannot have white babies, and they will go on having black babies—

Mr. Bell: At last the hon. Lady realises it.

Miss Lestor: I realised it a very long time ago. People like the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and others put up this argument about black babies and the rest, but none of us can alter the fact that in some areas large numbers of coloured people will have babies, some of whom will be black and others lighter. Incidentally, I do not know why when a black person marries a white person their baby should be considered coloured, and therefore more black than white. Nevertheless that is a fact of life.
I want to contract out of the grotesque argument about the size of the future coloured population because it is an argument that one cannot win, nor is it worth winning. Its purpose is to instill fear in people. It is not connected with immigration but with colour. A person's colour cannot possibly be important. I will discuss with anyone problems connected with culture, language, education, and many other subjects, but I cannot follow anyone who just says, "She's going to have a black baby". What matters the colour of a baby? If we


stopped immigration tomorrow we would have to face that matter. Until people do face it and accept that it is not so bad after all, I do not think that we shall ever get out of what I believe to be a rather foolish and stupid argument. It also has a bad effect on coloured children in this country.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that the people of Birmingham had a right to know what was likely to happen there in the future. Who are the people of Birmingham? I am the Member of Parliament for Slough, and I represent the people who live there. Some of them are immigrants, and I include them in my concepts of equality. They have the right to my services. They are not separate from the rest of the people in Slough. The more we divide people into immigrants and non-immigrants the nearer we get to fulfilling the right hon. Gentleman's prophecy. This is what will happen, because people will be divided and will think of the "them" and of the "us". People who are coloured and non-white and who are born here and whose children are born here will be affected by the propaganda; they will feel that they do not belong here. Speeches like that will make them feel outsiders. Thus we go on and fulfil our own prophecy.
By all means let us have immigration policies that are sane, sensible and fair. Let us not, if we care what happens in terms of community, get ourselves into a situation where we refuse to talk about policy and start talking about the complications of the fact that people are coloured. That cannot be the problem. Many of the other matters may cause problems, but colour in itself will not be a problem unless people want to make it so.
I was interested this afternoon in the exchanges which took place on the statement about the Common Market negotiations. Unfortunately, I was not successful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye. If we should be accepted as a member of the European Economic Community, we must consider the relationship of people from Commonwealth countries who are already in Britain qua acceptance as Community workers.
If we create a situation—we already have it—where some are acceptable and some are not, where some are citizens of

Britain and some are not, and where some have dual citizenship—we have not cleared that one up yet; to what extent are they acceptable as Community workers?—we shall encounter grave difficulties.
I hope that when the Government present their immigration policy they will have discussions about the relationship of any future immigration policy to the whole concept of Europe and the relationship of Community workers and mobility of labour, because this will be a problem if—I say it reluctantly—we enter Europe.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said about the question of the East African Asians. One of the unfortunate ways in which Britain is now seen is that she presents people of her country who have British citizenship and no other in a way in which they are shuffled from airport to airport in a sort of obscene square dance because we, the country of which they are citizens, say that they are trying to jump the queue.
I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that the question of the number of special vouchers available to East African Asians must be considered, and I hope that it will be considered in the context of a future immigration policy, because I believe that the number available is not meeting the demand, which has accelerated recently.
We must also look afresh at the situation and see whether it is right, because I do not believe that it is right, that holders of British passports can be classified as immigrants. This is a wrong and unwise classification.
I agree with the Home Secretary that the question of race relations is of paramount importance for the future. It is a great pity that community relations in Britain have come to mean race relations. For example, we tend to think of the Community Relations Commission in terms of dealing with problems arising from race relations rather than problems arising from community relations.
We should serve ourselves better if we recognised that within a community people who have come from different countries to settle have special problems, but in many instances the problems affecting all people within a community are


much the same. They are the problems of living together, of housing, of education, and other local problems.
Community relations involves much more than just race relations. If we could widen our whole concept of community relations and the Community Relations Commission and talk more about community relations than about race relations, we should take the emphasis off the question of colour and bring it to a greater extent on to the question of community.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I hope the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) will forgive me if I do not follow her in her remarks.
We have had a much more restrained debate today than we had at a similar time last year. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) made a very long speech today, and I hope he will forgive me if I say that it seemed to me to be about the longest speech that I have ever heard. There was a very different approach in his speech tonight compared with his speech last year.
Perhaps the most important feature in this debate has been the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It was an extremely powerful speech. My right hon. Friend has come in for a great deal of abuse. He has been attacked by hon. Members opposite for stirring things up. My right hon. Friend said what needed to be said, and I think that is vitally important.
Before my hon. Friend made his speech in Birmingham in 1968, many people in this country believed that somebody had to say what they themselves felt. There were many people who felt then, and perhaps still feel, that Parliament it out of touch with the people. Resentment was building up, and I think my right hon. Friend performed a public service because he took the lid off and opened up a conversation, so that people were able to talk freely about something which previously they had been frightened to discuss. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to interrupt me, let him rise to his feet and do so.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I do not think the hon. Member's speech is worth interrupting at the moment.

Mr. Montgomery: In that case, perhaps the hon. Member will not do so.
After my right hon. Friend had made that speech, both major parties in this country took a much tougher line on the question of immigration because they realised from the reaction of the public the strength of feeling in the country. I have been disgusted by some of the attacks that have been made by hon. Members opposite on my right hon. Friend—from people who pride themselves on being the champions of tolerance but who have no tolerance at all for any views which are not in accord with their own.

Mr. Norman Pentland: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has attacked the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on that speech on more than one occasion—in fact, probably more than anyone else?

Mr. Montgomery: Most of the abuse of my right hon. Friend has come from members of the party opposite. It certainly is not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who tries to prevent my right hon. Friend from speaking at meetings. That is done by supporters of the party opposite.
Parliament now recognises that large-scale immigration in this country causes problems, and I think both major parties accept this. I cannot help reflecting on the difference between now and 1962. I remember those days, when I represented a different constituency in this House, and the number of times we were kept up night after night and had very bitter debates. Why?—because in 1962 the then Conservative Government wanted to bring in a measure of immigration control. At that time there were threats by the Labour Party, who were in opposition, that if the Commonwealth Immigrants Act went on the Statute Book they would repeal it whenever they won a General Election. They won the 1964 General Election, but when they came into office the responsibility of government made them change their mind. Never again was there a threat by the Labour Party to repeal this legislation.
This afternoon the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) talked about a consensus. I cannot help feeling that it is a great pity that we did not have a consensus in 1962. If that had been forthcoming in 1962 and if we had had a bipartisan policy on immigration, a great deal more could have been done. Today we would not have quite the same problems. I am delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the new legislation that was promised in the Conservative Party's manifesto will soon be presented.
Unlike the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough, I believe that the new legislation will prevent further concentration of immigrants in areas which are already overcrowded. This vital point was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. From 1959 to 1964, I represented a constituency on Tyneside. We had no immigration problem there. In an electorate of about 48,000, there were about 300 Pakistanis. They were very good citizens. There was complete integration. One never received any complaints. They were buying their own homes, and everything was fine. But it is easy to integrate 300 people into an electorate of 48,000.
Since 1967, I have represented a West Midlands constituency, and here I notice the difference, because in the West Midlands we have a concentration of immigrants, as the hon. Lady has in her constituency. There are reasons why these people move into such areas. The hon. Lady was right when she talked about jobs being available in Slough. That is why the immigrants who initially came here after the war, particularly in the 1950s, moved into certain areas of the country, not to Tyneside, Merseyside or Scotland.

Mr. Pentland: No jobs.

Mr. Montgomery: There are not many jobs available in Tyneside now, after five and a half years of Labour Government. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is making such a fuss about. Initially, the immigrants lived in areas of high prosperity and high employment. When their relatives and friends came to this country later, they did what was natural and moved to the areas where they had relatives and friends. That is understandable. If I were to emigrate

to another country, I should try to move to where—

Mr. James Callaghan: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had emigrated to this country.

Mr. Montgomery: I emigrated to this country? I am sorry, but that is too profound for my brain. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means. It is no wonder that he is sitting on the Opposition benches if he is capable of that sort of remark.
It is understandable that immigrants moved to the areas where they had relatives and friends. But by their doing so—we have to be honest about this—problems have been created. There are problems of housing, education and hospital beds. These cause tension if nothing is done. Therefore, I hope that the Government will provide more money to spend in these areas to provide the facilities which will remove the causes of tension. It is vital also that we do whatever we can to prevent a further movement of immigrants into the areas where we already have overcrowding. I hope that that will be tackled by the new legislation.
Figures for immigrant population have been mentioned a great deal during the debate, and I must admit to a sense of bewilderment. My right hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West and for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) both concentrated on this. Their speeches introduced a sense of realism, compared with some of the head-in-the-clouds stuff we have had from the Opposition benches. As my right hon. Friend has constantly said, numbers are the essence. When, originally, he made his projections as to what he thought the immigrant population would be, he was jeered at. But it has now been proved that the figures which he gave were an underestimate and that he had understated the situation. When my hon. Friend winds up, I shall be grateful if he gives us some idea of the total immigrant population. None of us can be sure.
Part of the County Boroughs of Wolverhampton and Dudley are in my constituency. If I try to find out what the immigrant population is in either of those county boroughs, I am given an estimate based on the number of immigrant children in the schools. It


cannot be accurate, and it likely to be an underestimate.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched on the question of illegal immigrants. I am sorry that he did not say more about the present position. Obviously, we cannot maintain accurate figures of how many illegal immigrants there are, for it should be our job, if we know that there are illegal immigrants, to see that they are told to leave the country. However, I should be interested to know whether the Home Office has an estimate of the number of illegal immigrants. Also, I hope to hear an assurance that there will be tough penalties imposed on those who trade in bringing illegal immigrants to this country for large sums of money.
My right hon. Friend was chided by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davies) for saying nothing, about immigrants who were already here or about community relations. I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman just did not get the message. He does not realise that to continue admitting more and more immigrants makes difficulties for the immigrants who are already here. The hon. Gentleman would be surprised if he knew how many immigrants support my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Tell us.

Mr. Montgomery: A very large number. Let the hon. Gentleman look up the election result in Wolverhampton, South-West on 18th June last. My right hon. Friend's constituency has the bulk of the immigrant population of Wolverhampton; it happens that they live in the South-West constituency.

Mr. Clinton Davis: rose—

Mr. Montgomery: No. I invited the hon. Gentleman to intervene earlier, and he did not take the opportunity. I am telling him now to go and look at the figures, which showed conclusively that the people of Wolverhampton, South-West support my right hon. Friend's views. It is supposed to be one of the reasons for our being Members of Parliament that we represent the views of people in our constituencies, and the result on 18th June proved conclusively, despite all the abuse which has been

hurled at him, that my right hon. Friend represents the people of Wolverhampton, South-West.

Mr. Pentland: Abuse by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Montgomery: If the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) wishes to speak, he ought to rise to his feet in the proper manner.

Mr. Pentland: I was again drawing the hon. Gentleman's attention to the facts. He talks about abuse hurled at his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West from this side, but no abuse can match the abuse hurled at him by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Montgomery: That still does not alter my argument that—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I recognise that this debate must have been fairly wide-ranging, but since I assumed the Chair it has ranged rather too far.

Mr. Montgomery: I am sorry, Miss Harvie Anderson, if I ranged too far, but I was a little taunted.

Mr. Callaghan: Saved by the bell.

Mr. Montgomery: I do not know whether it is right for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to you as a bell, Miss Harvie Anderson. I suppose it depends how one spells the word.

Mr. Callaghan: Miss Harvie Anderson. I clearly meant—and it was understood by everyone except the hon. Gentleman. I am sure—that you were the "belle of the ball".

Mr. Montgomery: Now we all know why the right hon. Gentleman was once Home Secretary.
In the interests of the indigenous population as well as the interests of the immigrant population, it is necessary that the Government have a tough immigration policy. We have the problem of integrating the immigrants who are already here. We have a duty and responsibility in that respect. If we know the size of the problem, we can, I believe, cope with it and find a solution. If, on the other hand, the problem worsens all the time because the immigrant population in certain areas is growing rapidly all the time, the solution will be much more difficult. Therefore, I await the Government's new


legislation with interest, and I earnestly hope that it will measure up to the problem which confronts us.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I do not propose to deal with the somewhat trivial speech of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), who seemed to think that this was a useful occasion to act as an apologist for the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). That seemed to be his sole contribution tonight.
Racism is a corrosive evil which can well endanger our society. The contribution which has been made on this subject by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is not of advantage in promoting racial tolerance in this country, despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill. That is why I oppose, and will go on opposing, what he has to say.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman has a morbid preoccupation with his desire to achieve power, but that view is mild compared with what his own Prime Minister said about him, when he referred to him as un-Christian. He uses this issue as a vehicle for promoting his desire for power and not for seeing racial tolerance practised in this country.
Until the right hon. Gentleman spoke, a balanced view was presented by both sides of the House. The Home Secretary illustrated the present position by saying that in his view—and these were his figures—there was a drop in Commonwealth immigration. He was not alarmist about illegal immigration, and, most important, he stressed the value of building up proper community relations. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), I wish that this could be backed up with rather more financial resources, but we can at least welcome the realisation that the positive aspects of community relations are important.
It is no use just talking about community relations in the very narrow sense of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. We must look at the matter in terms of conciliation, education and all the work being done day in and day out by community relations councils all over the country. That is

something we do not hear about from the right hon. Gentleman. He would do well to stress it from time to time.
Why is it that community relations officers are thrown into a state of despair by what the right hon. Gentleman preaches all too often? I know from my own community relations officer in the London Borough of Hackney how appallingly difficult his task is made whenever the right hon. Gentleman preaches the sort of thing he said tonight, but perhaps even more hysterically when he addresses meetings of the Conservative Party in certain parts of the country.
What is the right hon. Gentleman really arguing? What does he want to do about the problem? There is a problem. We know that it exists in housing, education and many other respects. What does he propose to do about those people who are here now? Does he say that those who have not got their families here should not bring them over? I do not know, because he does not spell it out.

Mr. Powell: I have said it quite plainly.

Mr. Davis: The right hon. Gentleman does say that?

Mr. Powell: I have said that in speech after speech.

Mr. Davis: More to the right hon. Gentleman's shame, because nothing could be more inhumane. I can understand quite well why his Prime Minister describes him as un-Christian, because to tear families apart in the way he wishes is totally un-Christian. It is something he should feel bitter remorse about saying, and not be proud of it.
What does the right hon. Gentleman say about vital workers who are needed here? Are they not to come? He would put an absolute blanket ban on such immigration. He would have no more at all.
What is much more important is the question of how we deal with those immigrants who are here. That is what the Select Committee was all about. Its members went to boroughs all over the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) came to my constituency when I was mayor. We went into the problems of industrial relations and conciliation in great depth, and I pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work he


did. I saw at first hand how he operated. My hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) was there, as were certain hon. Members opposite. That was a valuable task because it underlined what needed to be underlined—that serious politicians are concerned to treat this matter on a serious basis and to try to teach tolerance instead of despair.
In Hackney we have a large immigrant community. In Stoke Newington and Hackney, North the figure is estimated at about 14 per cent. and in my constituency something over 10 per cent. But we have an atmosphere of tolerance. I suppose this has a good deal to do with the fact that in East London we are used to immigration on a substantial scale. We had it in the early part of the century. My own grandparents came over during that period.
I was interested to read the debates which took place in 1905. The same sort of arguments were made then as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West makes now. They were not anti-semitic, just as he is not anti-colour. They were talking then in terms of the East London air being polluted by immigration. But I suggest that the contribution that many of those immigrants made has been of substantial value to this country.
Hackney was in the forefront of the fight against intolerance in the 1930s which was exploited by the Fascists. That is why I believe we can still be tolerant in Hackney, and I must say to the credit of most of the Conservatives on the local council—there are a few who follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—that they have illustrated their desire to build up the work of the Community Relations Council. It receives overall party support. What it has done positively is to promote play groups and to hold educational meetings, and it has placed great emphasis on and has had great success in conciliation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East will recognise.

The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because, as I have said before, I realise that the debate has been very wide-ranging. But I hope that he will come back to the real subject

of the Amendment, which is to deal with matters related to the Bill rather than the aspect of the matter which he has been dwelling on up to the present.

Mr. Davis: The debate has been wide-ranging, Miss Harvie Anderson, and I think that I am the first to suffer.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not want to restrict the hon. Gentleman more than I need. I assure him that I realise that the debate has been wide-ranging, but I think that he is just stretching it rather far, and I would be grateful if he would return to the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. Davis: I accept your stricture. Miss Harvie Anderson.
The rôle of the police has been mentioned, and it is a point of great substance in relation to the part which the police can play in building up a proper relationship with the immigrant community within all our boroughs and constituencies. I am proud to say that in my constituency this opportunity has been exploited magnificently. I believe that this is the way forward and not the talk of despair which we have heard from some hon. Members opposite. We have had a valuable contribution, as so often, from the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who spoke, quite properly, about questions of industrial dispersal which are so germane to everything we are discussing.
I want to turn from this to underline the problem of the Kenya Asians. There are 9,000 on the waiting list, and we are told by the Secretary of State that he has not quite made up his mind. But these people can ill afford to wait. Their situation is dire. They are without employment and they are suffering great humiliation, hardship and deprivation. I beg the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to reconsider the situation with great rapidity. This is a matter in which the country has been humiliated by the European Commission on Human Rights, and surely we must deal with the matter with great expedition if we are to do justice to these unfortunate people.
Hatred can only poison our society and only degrade our people. That is why I and many of my hon. Friends will take every opportunity to rebuke those who preach hatred, despair and fear.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) for several reasons, and not least because I happen to represent a very large proportion of the Jewish people who came from Hackney and East London and who moved into the Borough of Redbridge, into Ilford. I was very interested in what he had to say. It was perfectly true. Reading the debates of the early 1900s and the Report of the Royal Commission on what even then was called immigration, it is salutary to see exactly the same arguments, the same rationalisations, the same sneaking, sly, sanctimonious justifications. What the hon. Member said is something to which the Committee should listen, and I should like to congratulate him.
I know that the hon. Member spoke with sincerity, but had he spoken from a tactical motive I would have congratulated him on adopting a sound political tactic—"If you want to be noticed, attack someone big". He was attacking my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). There may be force in what the hon. Member says and I would say to my right hon. Friend that there is a question as to what we do with those immigrants who are already here. Whether my right hon. Friend expands on that is a matter for him.
But the hon. Member should not underrate the value of what my right hon. Friend has done, for he has spoken in the House and outside for the feeling and the heart and the guts of the people of the country, right or wrong, in a way in which others were afraid to speak. Since he spoke, whatever view one might take of what he said, millions of people have had a renewed sense of confidence in the validity of Parliament and parliamentary representation. We should not underrate the value of my right hon. Friend's contribution.
I do not wish to take the time of the Committee unnecessarily, but I would not like this occasion in this Committee to pass without recording that this is the first debate which the Committee has had without the present Lord Chancellor, and we are much the poorer for the loss of Quintin Hogg from this House. He

was a Member who rarely touched any subject in which he did not both make a practical contribution and raise the argument to the plane of nobility, in which hon. Members are sometimes a little deficient. I can safely say that because his scope for patronage is now sufficiently limited for me to be able to afford to voice my respect for his parliamentary memory.
The debate gives us an opportunity to restate our position on immigration and for the Committee to say what its object is. I submit that our object should be to secure as far as we are able through the law and the Administration that the peace is maintained. I do not think that we should be too hopeful about what we can do beyond that, but it is our duty to see that the peace is maintained at the very least and to ensure that all the Queen's subjects have and are seen to have equal rights under the law and, so far as we can, to ensure decent attitudes towards strangers who are lawfully in our country and whose children will be lawfully here and whose children will not want to feel themselves strangers. There is an obstacle to that objective of maintaining peace and decent attitudes. The obstacle is fear. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has pin-pointed this fear. It is not right to pretend that it is not there. There are very real fears. There are practical fears, although most practical arguments are really only rationalisations.

Mr. Bidwell: On the point of fear, which is perfectly valid, does the hon. Gentleman know that when we asked representatives of local authorities who came before us on the Select Committee why there seemed less fear the general reply was that people were getting used to one another?

Mr. Iremonger: I am obliged. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman were to be making my speech he would make it much better than I. But at the risk of detaining the House, may I resume my own halting way unassisted by him?
I was trying to say that there are real practical fears, and maybe they are declining. Anyway, I think that practical fears are rationalisations. There are fears about housing and education and resentment at the use of the social services, and the less real justification there is for them the more I am certain that they are


rationalisations of something which is much more real than anything practical. I believe that it is rooted deep in human society.
This territorial concept is fashionable now. It is not for nothing that the tallest column in this country has Lord Nelson at its top. He is there in Trafalgar Square because he stopped the invader coming to our shores. There is a deep sense of insecurity within every community and it extends, I am sure, to the nation. I am sure that the people of our country have a deep, unconscious fear of being over-run and of losing their identity. They resent the presence of strangers and foreigners, especially those whom they can identify by their colour.
I am not saying that this is a good thing, but I am saying that it is a reality. If we do not recognise it they do not respect our right to try to speak for them. We should not ignore it or under-rate it. The first duty of a politician is to listen. People hear nothing but what they want to hear, and many politicians do not want to hear what the people are saying to them. Our people are saying to us, "We do not like this, we are badly frightened." I think that the people of this country are more than frightened, they are in panic.
For that reason—not because I think that it is particularly necessary for its own sake—it would be wise to go much further than I think my right hon. Friend proposes to do in any legislation that he has in mind, and—whatever the technical details may be—he should Put a total stop to future immigration for permanent settlement, except on a reciprocal basis—not because, as I say, I think that it will have an enormous practical effect, but because it would steady the nerves of people. What is more, I do not think that it would do any harm.
Whom would it harm if we never had one more immigrant in this country for permanent settlement? If it did do harm, who could calculate it? It would be a somewhat abstract argument. So I should like to see legislation such as would absolutely stop permanent immigration. It would then very much better become us, and lie much better in our mouths, if we presumed to lecture our people in the way that many high-minded and well-meaning people do lec-

ture them. Their attitude in lecturing them is nothing but admirable.
I should like to say one word on an aspect of this immigration policy matter which I do not think—I apologise for being obliged to be out of the Chamber for an hour or so—we have heard much about, and that is repatriation. I should like to say at the risk of incurring the displeasure of those whose pleasure I normally court that talk about repatriation is utter humbug. I love the way in which the word "voluntary" comes into it. If it is voluntary repatriation and the people are going anyway, what is the point of paying them? If it is not voluntary, how soon will we say, "We will provide urinals in the cattle trucks; it will not be as bad as all that"?
I have even heard of "humane" repatriation from the more naïve advocates of it. Why should it be necessary to say "humane"? What is meant by "humane repatriation"? Does it mean that we shall twist their arms only halfway up their backs? Repatriation should be either voluntary, in which case we should let it take its natural course, or it should be eschewed, and people who want it should confine themselves to writing "Blacks go home" on walls. It is not worthy of the dignity of the House of Commons to consider it, and I am glad that I am the only one mentioning it.
I should like to say a few words about the sick fringe, or the sick fringes. There are two sick fringes. One is the fringe which calls itself the patriots. I should like to know on what patriotic virtue those who oppose black people being permanently settled in this country pride themselves. I always find it a little difficult to identify with them, although I am grateful that most of them vote Conservative. But let me assure the Committee that if I had a Fascist candidate standing against me in my constituency, which I would dearly like, he would take equally people who would normally vote for me and people who would normally vote for my opponent. That is the truth, and we know it. The patriots can "dree their own weird".
But there are mischievous sick fringe elements on the extreme of what one might call the liberal side, the criminal, paranoid, psychopathic black power kind of enthusiasts who are far more dangerous to those with liberal views than the


other sick fringe is to the saner elements in the political spectrum.
I should like to read a letter in the national Press—the Daily Telegraph—which I thought was the first really sane and constructive contribution made to this continuing debate for many years. It appeared at the end of August this year, and it read:
I am an African lady, married and settled in the United Kingdom for the past five years. During that time I have found that the British people are more than willing to offer help and friendship to a foreigner, coloured or otherwise, providing that he or she in turn approaches them without surliness but with a cheerful smile and a sense of humour. Alas, that was so until recently when for the first time a stranger in the street shouted after me, 'Get out of Britain, go home, and take your mate Malcolm X with you'"—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have been rather unsuccessful in my efforts to bring the debate within its proper scope. I hope that the hon. Member will assist me.

Mr. Iremonger: I would not presume, Miss Harvie Anderson, to construct the elaborate argument which I could construct to demonstrate, I would hope, that my remarks were entirely within order. I will move from this point of my argument, which is simply to say that for every mischievous black power troublemaker in this country there are 100,000 decent, ordinary people who have no desire to go around calling British policemen "pigs", which is a totally "phoney" phrase brought from heaven knows where—some barbaric place across the Atlantic, where they may call their policemen "pigs". I am sure that it is a thoroughly unjustified attitude towards American policemen. It is not only an unjustified attitude towards British policemen but it is an attitude which we have never had in this country. We have never used the word "pigs". People, black or white, who go through London calling out "pigs" after policemen do not know what they are talking about. They are absolutely "phoney" and they should be disowned, as I think they are, by their fellow immigrant settlers.
I am not pessimistic. I do not believe that we are bound to have the same kind of trouble in this country that the United States has had. Our whole social and historical background is entirely different. I am certain that the question which the

hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) chided my right hon. Friend for not answering—whether or not they go, and however many may stay, what do we with those who stay?—is the real question. I am quite sure that in 10 or 20 years' time, the fact that over the years we have been so anxiously debating how we come to terms with the black minority in this country and the anxiety of those who think that present fears will be justified and grow worse, will seem as paltry and lacking in confidence in the quality of our countrymen as now seems the anxiety which was expressed 70 or 80 years ago about the influx of Jewish people, who have followed the traditional rôle of the Jewish people of first thoroughly upsetting and then enormously stimulating every society which they have graced with their presence.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I do not necessarily rise to complete the debate—that is not in my power—but I should like to offer some observations to the Committee and to thank the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Ire-monger) for his usual stimulating speech. We always listen to him with great interest. Perhaps some of his own side listen to him with a certain amount of apprehension. In view of the hon. Member's animadversions about the patriots of this country, if I had to describe him in not too offensive words I would say that I regard him as the typical patriotic eccentric. His views are always informed by his love of the country. But they are, if he will allow me to say so, rather like one of those unguided missiles about which we have been hearing so much recently.
I want to say how much I agree with the hon. Member about Quintin Hogg. I would not necessarily go all the way in the encomium, but on race relations and immigration there is no doubt that Lord Hailsham faced opposition in his own party with a very great deal of courage. Those of us who heard him speak on the subject in the House know that he never shirked the difficult task—and sometimes it can be difficult when one is on the Front Bench—of defending his point of view and expounding it irrespective of the criticism which came from behind him. There were occasions when he had a very difficult time.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member that Quintin's departure is a loss to the House. He is, apparently, still behaving himself in his normal way in the Upper Chamber. I suppose, however, that I would be out of order in referring to that, and I shall not do so. Nevertheless, I should like to hear what went on in the Cabinet when Lord Jellicoe and Lord Hailsham met each other on the morning after the economic debate. I say no more about that.
I regret that I did not hear the speech of the Home Secretary. If he would like to get out of order by telling us about the last remark, I am sure that we would be delighted to hear it. The debate started so late that I had to leave before I could hear the right hon. Gentleman, and I apologise to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has, however, kindly given me some notes of what the Home Secretary said, and I am grateful to him.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what I understood him to say was the great exaggeration on the subject of illegal immigration. I also agree with him in his tribute to the immigration service, which does its task with very great skill and in an extremely fair-minded way. We put very great burdens on the immigration service. The Home Secretary proposes to put additional and very difficult burdens upon it if his legislation which has been foreshadowed comes to pass, but, no doubt, we shall discuss that later. On those two points, I am certainly in full agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I have attended many of these debates over the years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) said, they have changed their character. There was a time when we used to discuss only aliens. Now we seem to discuss only Commonwealth problems. Both are important.
Because, like other hon. Members, I shall spend most of my time on the question of Commonwealth immigration, I want to mention the case of Rudi Dutschke. I am forced to do this by the Home Secretary's handling of the case. We shall have to return to the question, no doubt when the tribunal has declared itself, because it is not definitive in this

matter; it is advisory to the Home Secretary. He will have to take the final decision on Rudi Dutschke, although he has already declared his own view on the matter.
I should like some guidance from the Minister of State about what will happen if the tribunal reaches a conclusion different from that which the Home Secretary has reached. I should like to know whether the Home Secretary will feel himself bound by the tribunal. I should be glad if I could have an answer on that point. Unless the Home Secretary says, "Well, despite my previous views, I am ready to accept what the tribunal says on this matter, although it is acting only in an advisory capacity", there would seem little point in asking the tribunal to deal with the question. I do not see why we should waste the time of four or five eminent gentlemen if the Home Secretary, irrespective of what they say, intends to adhere to his original conclusion.
It may be argued that the case is sub judice, and that therefore nothing should be said about it. But it is not sub judice in the sense that the tribunal is an advisory body, and the Committee is surely entitled to make its view clear. I want to make my view clear. I do not know that anything that Rudi Dutschke has said appeals to me. I doubt whether he would agree with me about very much, either. Whatever view I take about him, I am not concerned about his views. There are many other people in this country whose views I do not like and who have just as little title to be here as he has. I am not sure how far the Committee has taken that fact on board.
There is a section—I believe it is section 8—in the instructions to immigration officers which provides that if a person wishes to come to this country, is of independent means and will make no call upon the services of this country, he may be admitted for a period which can be extended, and extended, and extended, and extended. Many such people living in this country today have been here for a long time, people of independent means, making no call upon our services, people whose views I do not say I find distasteful in a political sense but who in my opinion add no more to the country than does Rudi Dutschke. They are not turned out.
The Home Secretary has great arbitrary powers in this matter. They are almost dictatorial powers, except that he has to account for himself to the House. I tell him, in no menacing way, that he will have to account for himself to the House on this matter in due course, when the tribunal has given its view, and when I shall certainly want to ask him whether he proposes to use his arbitrary powers in the case of this gentleman, who has made no call upon our services.
I have refreshed my mind with the facts, and I find that Rudi Dutschke's solicitors undertook that he would seek private medical advice whilst here, and would pay for it. He has not been any charge on our health service. He has lived here quietly, studying, and the Home Secretary will have to be very careful about the way in which he exercises the dictatorial powers with which he has been charged by Parliament.

Mr. Maudling: This case is the subject of an appeal, and because of that I have scrupulously avoided putting my side of the case. The right hon. Gentleman is putting his side of a case that is the subject of an appeal.

Mr. Callaghan: That is the right hon. Gentleman's own opinion. If he chooses not to put his own side he cannot complain if others want to know the reason for it. In my view, he has taken refuge behind the reference of this case to the appeal tribunal. He should have given us his reasons for the decision that he has taken. I hope he is not suggesting that I am doing anything improper in expressing my view about the manner in which he should conduct the inquisition into this gentleman's case.

Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept that from my predecessor. I took a decision in this case which I think was right, the gentleman concerned then appealed, and I was advised that once an appeal had been lodged it was wrong for me to discuss in public the merits of a particular issue, and I do not intend to do so.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman quite misunderstands his position. Of course he is entitled to discuss his own decision on this, and to give his reasons. He should already have given his reasons on a matter of this sort. It was he who took the preliminary decision that the

man should leave the country. If he was questioned on that he should have given his reasons at that stage for requiring the man to leave the country, instead of taking refuge in Section 9(1) of the Immigration Appeals Act.
I am not prejudging the results. I cannot do so because I do not know the facts. Only the Home Secretary knows what security considerations are involved since 18th June. I certainly know what considerations were involved before 18th June, but I have no knowledge of any since then. I do not know and cannot say what evidence he has that the rest of the House of Commons does not have on this matter, but if it is shown that no security considerations are involved, the right hon. Gentleman will have to give a very full account of himself and not take refuge behind the appeals procedure because he does not like the views or opinions of the man concerned. I hope he will do so. On the basis of information and evidence that I have seen about this man, irrespective of the man's views, the Home Secretary is behaving and has behaved in a way that has not been applied to a great many other persons of independent means living in this country and admitted under my aegis, my predecessor's aegis or even his aegis. That is all I want to say at the moment, but we will return to it later.

Mr. Maudling: Once again, I think this is a very unfair use of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman must know very well that this is an important case. I had to reach a decision, and I reached a serious decision, but once it went to appeal I have been inhibited. No one else has been inhibited. Everyone else has been talking about it. I do not intend to put my case until I am told that it is proper to do so. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge and responsibility as previous Home Secretary, should indulge in these tactics.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Callaghan: It is absurd for the Home Secretary to take this view. He knows as well as I do that not even the comforting cheers of the claque behind him will convince people about this. He took a decision, and he was entitled to say, and should have said, at the time of taking the decision what were the reasons for his decision. He did not have to, but


if he is challenged he should do so, and he should have been prepared to do so. There is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from giving those reasons at this time. He cannot now shout "Unfair" as a means of protecting himself and say that it is an unfair use of the House of Commons. It is a perfectly proper use of the House of Commons, and he knows it. I shall insist and I do insist that we shall need a very full explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maudling: You will get it!

Mr. Callaghan: Why did we not have it in the first place before Mr. Dutschke appealed? The right hon. Gentleman was questioned about it then. He gave no answer. He merely said "I have reached my decision".

Mr. Mandling: I will, with great pleasure, provide a full explanation to the House of Commons when the matter is no longer sub judice.

Mr. Callaghan: The matter is not sub judice now. The matter has gone to a strictly advisory body. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has interrupted me on three or four occasions, perhaps he will kindly answer my question, which is intended as a perfectly straight one. Will he accept the decision of the advisory committee? I will willingly give way to allow him to answer. [Interruption.]
Are we not to have an answer? What does this mean? Does it mean that if the advisory committee agrees with him the right hon. Gentleman will go on, but that if it disagrees with him he will still hold himself free to eject this man?

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): What about the Boundaries Commission?

Mr. Callaghan: I assure the Under-Secretary that the Home Secretary does not need his assistance. Indeed, I doubt whether he welcomes it, such as it is.
The Home Secretary is putting himself in a difficult position if he is unwilling to answer this straight question. After all, he referred to this matter to the advisory committee. What was the point in doing that if he does not intend to accept that body's decision? It is, in my view, incumbent on him, if he dis-

closes evidence—he may have different evidence; it is not open to the rest of us—to this distinguished body of people and they decide that in their view this man should not go, to explain what justification he would then have for saying, "Nevertheless, I insist on his going".
Does the right hon. Gentleman have any such justification now? The refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to answer my straightforward question follows the pattern of his previous conduct in this case. He bought a little cheap popularity with the Wolverhampton, South-West hon. Members of the House of Commons on a political basis—[Interruption.] That is what he tried to do. He has since been trying to justify it by going further and further down the slope away from the way in which any Home Secretary should behave on an issue of this kind.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I know the antecedents of this case. I do not know what has happened since 18th June, but even if this man were the worst man in the world, he should still be entitled to have the normal standards applied to him. The right hon. Gentleman has not applied them in this case, and I promise him that I shall return to this subject later, when we have the view of the tribunal and when the Home Secretary intervenes in a lordly way and explains what has happened since 18th June to make him take his present view and why he has refused to give a straight answer to my question about whether or not he will accept the view of the advisory committee. He should have thought about this when he first referred the matter to that body. He is now on extremely weak ground.

Mr. Iremonger: It would be helpful to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would qualify this point: either the process to which the question has been referred is a judicial one or it is not. Does the right hon. Gentleman see this as being a judicial process?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a difficult question to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am not sure exactly what the words "judicial process" mean in this connection, but these are certainly not judicial proceedings. This is an advisory body, and no more than that. To that extent, therefore, the matter is not sub judice, and for this reason anybody is perfectly entitled to express his view on the matter.
Had I been out of order, I have no doubt that the Chair would have called me to order, because the Chair is always careful on issues of this kind. I do not wish to involve the Chair, except to the extent that I would have been called to order had I referred to any matters to which I should not have referred.
It will be the Home Secretary who in the last resort will take the decision, and that is why this is not a judicial point. He has said, in effect, "I will seek somebody else's advice." When that advice is finally given to him he will have to account to us, to the House of Commons, for his conclusion. By refusing to answer my question about whether or not he will accept the advisory committee's decision he is saying that he intends to reserve to himself, irrespective of what the advisory committee says, the decision in this matter.
I ought perhaps to move to the question of Commonwealth immigration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite may indicate their impatience but, as I pointed out earlier, when some of them may not have been here, these debates always used to be wholly about aliens and it is only in recent years that we have decided to make them wholly about immigrants. Nevertheless, we are including both Acts in our discussion this evening.
It is most difficult for a man to get repatriation even if he wants it. I have constituents desperately anxious to go back to the West Indies, where they wish to rejoin their children. I have asked for help on their behalf from the Supplementary Benefits Commission without any possibility of success at all. I saw these people at my interviews only last Saturday morning. Repatriation is most difficult even when people like this want to go back.
The reply I have had, and I am sure that it is in accordance with the rules laid down by the Government, "Agreed that the man is unemployed and cannot possibly find his fare: nevertheless he could probably get employment again and may do in the months to come, so we cannot agree to repatriate him." That is the simple answer I have had. Whether it makes sense or not, hon. Members must decide for themselves.
What is the purpose of the Government's new legislation? I have heard two glosses put on it this afternoon. I was told that this was to be a liberal Measure, but are the Government trying to make it easier for people to come here or are they trying to make it more difficult for them? Which leg are they standing on?
I can understand their deciding before the election what they should say in order to get elected. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell} gave them a very considerable tawdry advantage in that matter for which they have never adequately repaid him. There is no doubt that he had a tremendous impact in the Midlands, and I think that he influenced a good many people, as his Sancho Panza sitting beside him said—[Interruption.] The pronunciation may not be very good, but if the right hon. Gentleman is Don Quixote what can his hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) be? The right hon. Gentleman has been tilting at windmills for years, and is still tilting at them. I would not care to say who the Rosinante is—perhaps the Prime Minister.

Mr. Powell: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me now directly, I take the opportunity to say that just now he has treated this Chamber to the dirtiest performance that has been seen here for many years.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, a very good judge of that. I would certainly accept that, coming from him, because no one knows better than he how to dish it out in a dirty way. But if he thinks that it is a dirty performance to stand up for the rights of a foreigner living here, who is extremely unpopular with 90 per cent. of the people, including most of his own back benchers—if he thinks that is dirty, I am willing to accept it. I do not claim any great heroism in this, but it is important that we should be able to speak up for people who are unpopular, and whose views are unpopular, when the whole weight of the State is being directed against them. If that is dirty, I accept the charge. I will return to the right hon. Gentleman later. As I was saying, the Tory Party owes the right hon. Gentleman a rather squalid debt,


which it has failed to repay, for what he did.
But it is important that we should be clear about the purpose of the Government's policy. There are coming in at this moment only some 4,000 voucher holders a year, as I understand. Will fewer be coming in under the new policy, or will there be the same number, or will more be coming in? What is the purpose? What the Measure will undoubtedly do will be to create a vast bureaucratic machine. It will undoubtedly increase the number of civil servants. It will undoubtedly increase the task of the police in these matters, and it will undoubtedly make heavy calls on the immigration service. We are therefore entitled to know what all this bureaucratic structure is being erected for. I ask, but I think that I know. As the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, it is to satisfy the Tory Government's electoral pledge.
This is a gimmick. It is deceiving people in Britain, because it pretends that when this legislation has been passed there will be a substantial curtailment of the number of people coming here. Is not that what it is about? Is not that the lesson which was preached on the doorsteps by Conservative canvassers throughout the country for months before the General Election? Of course it is.
I say now, as I said in July when we debated this issue, that I doubt whether the passage of this legislation will make any difference to the numbers entering Britain. I ask the Minister of State to give us his estimate of the reduction in the number coming to Britain as a result of the passage of this legislation.
It is commonly believed, and certainly sedulously spread by Conservative propagandists, that the great number of coloured people who came to this country came during the period of the Labour Government. I do not know whether it is a matter of congratulation, but it would be as well to put the figures on record. In fact, the great bulk of immigration of coloured people came not during the lifetime of the Labour Government but during the lifetime of the Conservative Government. Taking figures of immigration into Britain since records have been kept, I estimate that whilst the Conservative Party was in power well over 600,000 people came to Britain from the

Commonwealth. During the Labour Party's period of office I estimate the figure at about 280,000—certainly less than half.
I do not know that I would bother to make this point, because I do not know that there should be much of a competition about it, if only hon. Members opposite would stop their canvassers from sedulously spreading these profound untruths throughout the country. Therefore, I put the figures on record. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who discuss these things will no doubt want to get it right when they are discussing the matter with their constituents in the future.
We know that this will create a vast bureaucratic machine. We know that it will not save anybody coming into Britain. The numbers coming here will be just as great as they have been in the past. What, then, is its purpose; and why is the legislation being delayed? Is its introduction being delayed because—I would hope this is not the case—the Government want to put it first to the Commonwealth? I ask the Minister of State quite directly what consultations are taking place with the Commonwealth. Have proposals gone to the Commonwealth? Have they been communicated to the Commonwealth and what response has there been to the proposals that the Government wish to put into force?
Always, one of the issues which were very much in the minds of those concerned with this was the impact on the Commonwealth. Since the Government blundered into their South African arms misfortunes as a result of a quick decision taken after the General Election, they must be more sensitive to the impact of Commonwealth opinion. I therefore ask the Minister of State to tell us whether consultations are taking place. If so, may we know what form they are taking and what response they are getting? If consultations are not taking place, I would certainly regard it as a grave dereliction of the Government's responsibility.
If consultations are not taking place, is it the Prime Minister's intention to discuss these issues at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at Singapore, because this will alter the whole basis of citizenship in the Commonwealth? It is a very drastic step that is being taken.
I always try to argue as straightforwardly on these issues as I can. I want to make it quite clear that I can see the case for an amalgamation of legislation on these issues provided that it is not to be against the background of trying to create a different kind of citizenship and in relation to cutting down numbers. On immigration grounds we know that that argument is unfounded.
I have always said—I have no desire to retreat now that I am in opposition—that there is a case for considering this. However, in considering it, it would be foolishness in the extreme to change the basis of Commonwealth citizenship without putting the proposals first to the Commonwealth Governments, getting their reactions, having a discussion on the matter at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at Singapore, and then returning here and saying, "The Commonwealth understands the proposals we are making. It has objections on this, that and the other. We think that we can meet certain objections but we think that the other objections are unfounded". To proceed upon any other basis would be to bring upon the Government a storm as great as the South African arms storm. I say this to them in advance, not in any spirit of good will, not because I care about them, but because I do care about unnecessary rows between Commonwealth Governments and the Government who represent the United Kingdom for the time being. I press very strongly indeed that this should be put to the Commonwealth Governments.
Indeed, I would sum up what I have to say about this in the words—I cannot better them—of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), in an article in, I believe, the Daily Telegraph of 11th August, writing about this legislation. He represents my view exactly. He said:
In sum, the plan for a small number of immigrants will be administratively costly, probably ineffective and certainly damaging to race relations.
I could not make a better epitome of it myself.
That is the legislation which we shall have to face and for which, no doubt, hon. Members opposite will be voting. It will have no impact on numbers, which is their prime concern. It can have a potentially damaging impact on the Commonwealth. It can have, I agree with the

right hon. Member for Ashford, a damaging effect on race relations in this country.
Another question that we think the Government ought to be ready to answer now—though I doubt that they are, in the light of other experiences tonight—is whether they have a view about the Irish and the immigration of the Irish. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West expressed his view clearly, that the Irish should be excluded—a very popular view.

Mr. Powell: Excluded?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that. I understood him to say that he thought the Irish should be put on the same basis as aliens in the matter of immigration. Is that not so?

Mr. Powell: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman should not paraphrase it with the word "excluded".

Mr. Callaghan: I see. If the objection is to the word "excluded", I readily accept that. He said that they should be treated on the same basis as aliens, which means a substantial curtailment in their numbers—a very popular view among many people in this country. It is said that the right hon. Gentleman always picks upon unpopular views, but do not let anybody be deceived. He is at the head of the popular gang. There are a lot of people who support him on this. Here again, I think we are entitled to ask the Minister of State whether the Government have reached any conclusions about the Irish.

Mr. Maudling: If the right hon. Gentleman had been here earlier he would have heard.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg the right hon Gentleman's pardon. I apologise for that. That must have been a point in the debate that was not included on the note which was handed to me. I will leave the point immediately. I do not know in what way the right hon. Gentleman made it clear, but I will pass on, and I beg his pardon.
We must he in a limbo until this new legislation arrives. I have expressed my view that it is unlikely to meet the expectations that hon. Gentlemen put before their constituents when they were


seeking election. I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to agree that the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration might have hammered out these proposals. This is one of the reasons why I originally proposed them and why Lord Hailsham, as he now is, accepted them. We hoped that controversial issues of this sort could go to that Select Committee which was working without regard to party, so that we could get a consensus view. I understand that the Home Secretary—I hope this has been correctly reported to me—turned down that proposition.
The right hon. Gentleman also turned down the proposition that there should be a White Paper setting out proposals for discussion before they reached this House. It looks as if we are to be faced with the Bill and that we shall have to fight it, although I hope there will be a number of points upon which we can agree, and certainly we shall try to agree on as much as we can. There will not be opposition for the sake of it.
I turn lastly to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough and by the hon. Member for Ilford, North. It is not a question which I expect the Minister necessarily to answer, but it is a question for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who, as I have said before, has the ear of the country—although not as much as he did, I am glad to say. The first wave of hysteria has passed over. He has never really caught another issue that managed to sway the people quite as much as that, and no doubt that is why he returns to it time after time.
The right hon. Gentleman still has never faced this question to the full extent. I do not know what proportion of the populations of Birmingham or Cardiff will be coloured in 20 or 30 years' time. What I do know is that they will be people born here, who will have been living here, but who will be of different colour. He has always failed to make clear, and he was asked again tonight, what his attitude is to those people of different colour. There are 1 million-plus, and there will be more, as he constantly tells us. Does he think that his attitude is helping? Does he care? Yes, I give him credit for that. I assume

that he cares, whether or not his attitude is helping. Does he accept—I can see no other alternatives—that these people will continue to live here? Does he intend forcibly to repatriate them? Or will they be sterilised so that they do not have black babies? Is that the end of it? He really must accept, some time or other, that there will be 1 million-plus living here.

Mr. Powell: A million?

Mr. Callaghan: Is it more?

Mr. Powell: Where has the right hon. Gentleman been all these years, not to say all these hours, that he talks about 1 million? What is the matter with him tonight?

Mr. Callaghan: It is many more. In that case, the question becomes even more pertinent. That is what I was trying to lure the right hon. Gentleman into saying. If there are 2 million, 3 million or 4 million, whatever figure he puts on it—there is no exact number, and everybody knows that—if it is more, then he has a double responsibility in this issue. He knows it, and he knows that that is the weakness in his case, and he has never faced it.
The right hon. Gentleman is an honourable man. I do not wish to be personally offensive to him, I promise him that. I have too much respect for his intellect and his capacity to see these things. But does he not realise—I say this as seriously and meaningfully to him as he has said things to us—that the creation of the kind of atmosphere which he has created—he says, "I am only representing what people feel in this country; I have been their voice"—could in the end lead to the excesses—I hardly like to utter the words—the disasters we saw in Nazi Germany before the war? It could do that. If the good sense of the House and of our people did not resist the logical conclusions of the fears he is expressing, we could find ourselves fighting the battles of the 'thirties all over again. I hope and believe that if that happened the right hon. Gentleman would be on our side. But he would have created the mischief as a result of his own speeches.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to recognise once and for all that whoever had the responsibility, whether his own


Government or my Government, or whoever it was, the people are here, they are not going home, and it is our job to ensure that they live here, not only for their sakes but for our sakes, in conditions in which peace and tranquillity can be assured, and in which we say, "Here is this new problem of these millions of coloured people living among us, and we have to ensure for ourselves and our children that we all live together peacefully."
We shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in due course, I want to make that clear. It has been a worthwhile debate, and I am grateful to the Committee and particularly the Government benches, for the way in which they have listened.

9.59 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I take it, Sir Robert, that it will be your intention in a minute or so to interrupt our proceedings so that a business Motion may be put. It is not my intention, as it was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), to cut the debate short at this stage. I imagine that the House will accept the Motion that the rule be suspended so that it will then be open to other hon. Members who have not yet succeeded in doing so to catch the eye of the Chair and continue the debate.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Sharples: Those hon. Members who have been here and have listened to the debate throughout will know that it

has been constructive and that the element of political controversy along party lines has not been apparent. At least, that was so until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East, who had not been here for much of the time, made a most extraordinary party political speech, for reasons which, I suppose, must be apparent only to him. The whole content and nature of his speech was completely out of context in relation to the remainder of the debate, and that will be recognised not only on this side but on his own side as well among those of his hon. Friends who have been here and have heard the speeches.
The debate has had three main themes. First, though this has not taken most of the attention, the Committee has discussed the situation existing under the law as it stands at present. That is what the debate really ought to have been about, because we are not discussing future legislation. We are discussing an expiring law which must be renewed, if only for a comparatively short time.
The second main theme of the debate has been the situation of United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa. The third theme has been, so to speak, a preliminary Second Reading debate upon a Bill which has not yet been presented to Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred in opening to the broad principles of that Bill and to the proposals which we put forward at the time of the general election. I have listened, as my right hon. Friend will have listened, to the various views advanced about the broad principles of the Bill, but it is not my intention tonight to go further into the arguments which will be considered at the proper time, that is, when the Bill comes up for Second Reading.
I come now to some of the specific points raised by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides. The right hon. Gentleman for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) spoke of the valuable work done by the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. I congratulate both the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) on the very useful paper produced under the auspices of the Runnymede Trust. It is a most valuable document, which deserves careful study. It


will be of great assistance to those wishing to study further not only the work of the Select Committee but the very valuable evidence which was presented to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), who has apologised to me because he has had to leave the Chamber, referred to the work of the police in immigration control and the matters which they must follow up in connection with immigrants already here. I was very glad that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the work of the police in his constituency. I know that they have a very difficult time. My hon. Friend raised the question of the use of the police in making inquiries of immigrant sponsors. Evidence was presented to the Select Committee on this matter. There are very real difficulties in finding other agencies to make the inquiries. It has been suggested that the work should be undertaken by local authorities, but there are great difficulties about this. Apart from the attitude of the local authorities there are legal complications.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who, unlike his right hon. Friend, made a constructive and thoughtful speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), referred to the question of illegal immigration and the evasion of controls. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary very rightly said that it would be absolutely wrong to overestimate the picture. He referred to certain figures which have been bandied about without, so far as I know, any basis. None the less, the whole Committee will agree that it is essential that we should deal effectively with illegal immigration and the evasion of immigration control. The police are reviewing their arrangements for doing this.
We are well aware that we should also look further afield and, besides tightening up the controls here, do what we can to stop illegal immigrants from setting out for these shores. This will involve approaches to a number of countries and those approaches are taking place.
We are also improving our arrangements to deal with evasion by persons admitted legally who attempt to stay

here in breach of their conditions. For example, there has been quite a lot of Press publicity about charter flight passengers. Special steps are now taken to check up on visitors who arrive on charter flights but fail to embark on the return flight. A special record is made of their names and arrangements are made to, follow this up as quickly as possible, if necessary through the police.
We are also taking steps to verify the bona fides of prospective Commonwealth students, for whom the best guarantee of admission is always an entry certificate. As an aid to getting rid of those who overstay their allotted time, deportation provisions are now included in the Immigration Appeals Act, 1969.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill that those who trade on immigrants by bringing them here illegally, often at considerable cost to the immigrant who does not know what he is paying for, should be treated with the utmost severity of the law.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) raised the question of doctors, as he did in the article which he wrote in the Daily Telegraph and which I read with great interest yesterday. The position with regard to doctors is quite interesting. In 1967, a total of 2,031 B vouchers were issued for doctors and in 1968 the figure was 3,082. In July 1969 a limit on B vouchers for doctors of 2,000 per year was imposed by the last Government. Then in November, 1969, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), then Secretary of State for Social Services, introduced new conditions for doctors wanting to practise in this country.
Under this scheme they had to have an attachment or produce evidence of a certain degree of competence before they were allowed to practise here. As a result of the introduction of these conditions there was and there is a pool of doctors requiring places under the attachment scheme. The policy has been under both Governments to give the places which are available for attachments to those who are already here. The result is that few places are now available for those wishing to come here to practise as doctors because the first priority in the attachment scheme, as I have said, is given to those already here.


In the first nine months of 1970, a total of 317 vouchers were issued to doctors and it is unlikely that the total for the year will exceed 600.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) suggested that there had been some friction between the British and Indian Governments about the position of United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa. I assure him that this is not so. The 1968 agreement with India is working well and since that agreement thousands of people from East Africa—United Kingdom passport holders—have been admitted to India, and we are very grateful to the Indian Government for the attitude they are taking to this matter.

Mr. Steel: The point I was making was that I understood that there were some applications from among that number then to come to this country under the agreement we made with the Government of India. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many of them have applied and how many have been given permission to come from India? I think that this is where the friction has arisen.

Mr. Sharples: I am unable to give those figures, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no friction between the British and Indian Governments on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman also asked for figures about those in East Africa who are wanting to come here. The authorised intake at present is 1,500 heads of families each year, or 6,000 including dependants. We and the previous Government have admitted more than 15,000 since the 1968 Act came into force and more than 50,000—and this is a figure which needs to be borne in mind—since the beginning of 1965. That includes those who came here before the restrictions under the 1968 Act came into force.
The estimated figure which I have been given of those United Kingdom passport holders who are still in East Africa varies between 150,000 and 200,000, but we do not know how many of those will wish eventually to come here. There are at present nearly 9,000 heads of households, mostly in Kenya and Uganda, in the voucher queue and this means, taking into account the families who go with them, that there are at present some

30,000 people waiting to come here. It is a fact that the queue for vouchers is substantially greater now than it was a year ago. In this connection I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend said about the future. As the House knows, we are reviewing the situation.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles also referred to the European Commission on Human Rights at Strasbourg. What has happened is not exactly as he put it. The Commission decided to admit for further consideration, on their legal and factual merits, applications by a number of United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa who alleged that their treatment under the 1968 Act constituted a violation of certain articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. I must emphasise that holding a case to be admissible, as the European Commission has, does not prejudge the factual decision on its merits. The Commission is still a long way from such a decision and it should not be assumed that its decision will necessarily go one way or the other.
Persons from East Africa are admitted on a quota, including dependants, of some 6,000 a year, and here I should like to refer particularly to queue jumpers. They are people who come here and who jump the queue illegally and then complain that they are not allowed to bring their families with them. This is not a situation of our making. If a queue jumper tries to beat the queue he deprives another man, who may legitimately be waiting for a voucher, of the chance of coming here and bringing his family with him, and this is something which should be recognised.

Mr. Steel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept what I and others have said about the destitution which queue waiters are suffering in East Africa? Does he accept that it is not their fault and that they are the victims of the actions of the two Governments concerned?

Mr. Sharpies: Certainly I do. We must recognise that there is destitution among certain people in this community. But this has been brought about by a racial policy which would be deplored in this country and which is practised by certain East African Governments.
I now turn to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He has produced a projection of the speech that he made in this debate last year and has carried forward the projection of his assessment of future population statistics. No one would wish to minimise the work and research that he must have put into the preparation of those figures and estimates. I would certainly not argue figures or projections with him this evening.
My own inclination is to treat all projections, whether official or unofficial and however carefully prepared—there have been projections by a number of different bodies—with some doubt. I have looked back at the questions and the answers on this subject over recent years, and I find that both have varied. One of the difficulties is the number of different starting points. There is the basic data from which any examination must start. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said that the accounting system was deficient. I would not disagree, but so are the assumptions upon which calculations of future trends can be made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to his assessment last year of the situation in Birmingham as a grotesque underestimate. That illustrated the difficulties that he may have had in making his assessment on the basis of the data and the assumptions available to us today. He referred to the interesting paper produced by Mr. Clifford Thomas, but he again said that the assumptions which square with the facts at present may not be relevant to a future situation—and there is the real difficulty of the assumptions from which we start.
On the data, we may be helped when we have the results of the 1971 census. For the first time this will include information on the country of birth of a person's parents. The assumptions, however, involve so many imponderables that I doubt whether we shall ever get full agreement on them. But there are certain facts which are quite clear, and it is on these that we should concentrate.

Mr. Bidwell: The hon. Gentleman will agree that there will be in that census no reference to colour of skin, and that it would be quite wrong to do so. There-

fore, people who tried to calculate on this basis will be in serious difficulties.

Mr. Sharples: I understand that there will be reference to the country of birth, of a person's parents.
There are some facts which we must face for the future. First, whatever we may do about limitation of entry or, more important, restriction of the rate of permanent settlement, we shall have for the future a much larger element of the population who are coloured than we had before the 1950s. What is important is the relationship which we established—the descendants of those who have lived in this country for generations—with those who have arrived here and the descendants of those who have arrived here in recent years.
We talk a great deal about the immigrant population, but the fact which we must face is that the children of those who came here as immigrants may be coloured, but they were born here, brought up here and they go to school here, and they will not only expect, but have the right to expect equal opportunities in work, housing and everything else with their white compatriots. The generation of people born here, whether of coloured or white parents, are British by birth in every sense of the word.
Those who seek to exploit the differece, whether they be black or white, do no service to those whose interests they purport to represent. For the future, our policy for the control of entry will be changed. The restriction on settlement will be very much tougher than it was in the past. At the same time, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stressed, our obligation to those who are already here remains the same. Our obligation to those already born or yet to be born, no matter the colour of their parents, is perfectly clear. It is an obligation which we in the Conservative Party intend to fulfil.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the question of Commonwealth consultation? Are the Government's proposals being put forward for consultation to Commonwealth Governments, or will they be put to the Prime Ministers' Conference in Singapore?

Mr. Sharples: We shall be able to discuss that matter when the Bill is


presented to Parliament. I have nothing to say on it at present.

Mr. Callaghan: Does that mean that no consultation is going on? Will not the Government learn the lesson of the South African arms fiasco?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I said at the beginning of the debate, our purpose was to sound out ideas at this stage in the life of the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. David Waddington: I do not propose to reopen the debate on immigration. I merely say en passant that I have sat here since four o'clock this afternoon, and it is a great pity if back-bench Members, although theoretically they are allowed to continue the debate almost indefinitely, are put in such a position that if they spoke they would be speaking too late to expect a reply from a Minister.
I wish to deal with a matter which hon. Members may not have noticed. Clause 1 is divided into two parts. We are not only renewing the laws concerning the control of Commonwealth immigration and immigration by aliens but extending a very important part of the Licensing Act, 1964.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree with the hon. Member's sentiments, but I hope that there is no misapprehension about this matter. If the Minister intends to reply to the hon. Gentleman on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, the hon. Member is entitled to put any question that he wishes to put. I do not think that he is under any disadvantage.

Mr. Waddington: The matter is better left. I do not wish to repeat the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. But when the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) breezes into the Chamber at a very late stage, not having heard much of the debate, and speaks and then, as is customary, the Government spokesman replies immediately afterwards, it is not a very opportune moment for another back-bench Member—the last back-bench

Member wishing to speak—to try to reopen the debate.
10.30 p.m.
The matter which I wanted to raise relates to subsection (2), which has the effect of extending for yet another year that part of the Licensing Act which created licensing planning committees in licensing planning areas. I would not expect my hon. Friend the Minister, at this late hour and without notice, to reply here and now to the questions which I am posing, but it seems to me to be somewhat extraordinary that we should have spent all day debating immigration, that the same thing happened last year and the year before, and that nobody has ever thought of raising the question of whether licensing planning committees any longer serve a useful purpose.
It is, unfortunately, a fact of political life that we set up these bodies and then we perpetuate their existence year after year, entirely forgetting the purpose of their existence, and we continue to perpetuate them. I hope that, in any event, before next year I will hear from the Government, first, how many of these licensing planning areas are left, whether the Government think that these licensing planning committees any longer serve a useful purpose and how long the Government intend that they should remain.
I remind the Committee once more that these licensing planning committees were set up in areas which had suffered extensive war damage, so that the functions of licensing justices and local planning authorities should be co-ordinated. It seems rather strange that 25 years after the event these bodies are still in existence.

Mr. Sharples: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) has raised this matter. He is absolutely right to raise it at this stage. I think I am right in saying that had he attempted to raise it on the Amendment which has just been withdrawn, he would have been out of order. My hon. Friend is quite correct in seeking to raise the matter in debating the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
The position is that there are now 17 licensing planning areas—London, Birmingham, Bristol, Canterbury, Coventry, East Ham, West Ham, Gosport, Grimsby,


Kingston upon Hull, Manchester, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Southampton, Sunderland and Swansea. Of the 33 areas that were originally constituted, licensing planning in 15 of them was ended between 1955 and 1963 and in a further area—South Shields—in April this year.
The Ramsay Willis Committee was set up in April, 1964, and was asked to report upon whether there was a continuing need for licensing planning machinery in the areas concerned. The Report of the Committee was published as a White Paper on 13th July, 1965. Its main recommendation was for licensing planning to continue in a modified form, which would be voluntary in principle but mandatory in certain circumstances. It would involve consultation between licensing justices and the local planning authority and could be applied to any area of development.
All the authorities have recently been asked whether they wish to continue. I understand that the vast majority—except one, South Shields, which has been abolished—have all said that they wish

to do so. It is our intention to take note of what my hon. Friend has said and to give further consideration to the matter.

Mr. Callaghan: Without depriving the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) of his morals—and I accept what he says; it is miserable to sit here from 4 o'clock until half-past ten—I am sorry to say to him that the subject was raised last year also and that a reply was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan).

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer; and of the Independent Television Authority, Cable and Wireless Ltd., and Horserace Totalisator Board, and to examine such activities of the Bank of England as are not—

(i) activities in the formulation and execution of monetary and financial policy, including responsibilities for the management of the gilt-edged, money and foreign exchange markets;
(ii) activities, as agents of the Treasury, in managing the Exchange Equalisation Account and administering Exchange Control; or
(iii) activities as a banker to other banks and private customers.

Ordered,
That Mr. John Biffen, Mr. William Clark, Mr. David Crouch, Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mr. Dormand, Mr. Peter Emery, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Green, Mr. Alec Jones, Sir Donald Kaberry, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. J. T. Price, Mr. David Stoddart and Mr Tugendhat be Members of the Committee:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purpose of particular enquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.

Ordered,
That five be the Quorum.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committtees any of the matters referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to adjourn from place to place.

Ordered,
That three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time any Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees.—[Mr Fortescue.]

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Science and Technology and to report thereon from time to time.

Ordered,
That Mr. Bob Brown, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. David Ginsberg, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Sir Harry Legge-Bourke, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Mr. Airey Neave, Mr. John Osborn, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. Keith Stainton, Mr. Gavin Strang, Dr. Tom Stuttaford. Mr. Tebbit and Mr. Kenneth Warren be Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order, and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time.

Ordered,
That five be the Quorum

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report to the Committee from time to time, and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order.

Ordered,
That three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with technical or scientific knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Fortescuel]

Orders of the Day — NORTH HUMBERSIDE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

10.37 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I wish to speak tonight about the worsening economic conditions on the north bank of the Humber, including, of course, the city of Kingston upon Hull. I wish to put a number of questions to the Minister in the hope that he can give me some detailed answers if he cannot exactly fill me with hope for the future.
In 1926 I was on a coalfield and I saw the sad conditions that existed then, and I have known them since. I can understand why the North-East is a special development area. Now I am in Hull, which to me has always been the third port. It is not merely a first-class port with a deep water channel, facing the Continent; it has always been a city with important industries—chemicals, food processing, engineering, electrical and metal goods, timber, deep sea fishing, and so on.
There is a curious dichotomy about Hull. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will enlarge upon this. At the moment the port, if not booming, is certainly doing well; indeed, if we take the passengers coming in on our ferry services to Gothenburg, Rotterdam and Hamburg, the number has risen from a few thousand some years ago to about 160,000 today. So the port is doing well. The dockers are working well. We have a record which can compare with that of any other first-class port.
Since 1964 I have been a constant advocate of the need to safeguard the future of the city. Since 1966 there has been a watershed in our unemployment figures. They have worsened. This is possibly the fourth debate in the last six years upon Hull. It shows the constant anxiety that has existed as our unemployment figures have mounted. I have attacked my Government in the past for procrastination, because in Hull we never seem to have jam today; it is always jam tomorrow. A Minister of my party came to Hull and talked about the Humber bridge. Even if the bridge is built the estuary will divide and disunite the two

banks. There will be no direct way south for Hull, and the south bank, which is booming today with natural gas, oil and other developments will be detached from what we believe to be the capital city of the region.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) at a certain conference spoke about a magnificent new city with a population of 750,000. I wonder when we shall get that. This is in the future, but we have to do something now, if only to sustain and accelerate our economy in the 1970's. There have been feasibility studies which concluded that Humberside had a magnificent potential and could become a national growth area in the 1980's, but the final decision is deferred until 1972. The Labour Government gave us the go-ahead with the Humber bridge. We are still waiting for this Government to be solid and clear in this matter, and I hope the Minister will say something about this.
The unemployment figures are the highest since 1948. They have been steadily worsening since 1966. The outward migration is masking the significance of our surplus of males. It is the younger workers, the non-manual workers and skilled workers who are leaving us. As in all ports, our dock labour force is falling. So until 1975 the outlook for male employment is bleak.
We have been given intermediate area status. What benefit from this measure is now being felt? We shall perhaps not get the full benefit until the mid 1970's when the bridge is completed.
Will the Minister say something about the east-west road network, the M.18 which I hope will overcome the notorious bottleneck at Thorne, go through Cowick and link with the M.62 to give us a highway west. This will make us less isolated and give opportunity for expansion.
Our local industries are diverse, and this produces difficulties. About 32 per cent. have less than 20 workers. Our local factories are too small and cannot afford the cost of personnel and planning officers.
I will say a word about the benefits we get and ask the Minister how they affect us. With our new status we shall get 25 per cent., and in special cases 35 per cent., towards the cost of factory building. T. J. Smith & Nephew, the famous pharmaceutical firm, and Birds Eye, the


famous food firm, are expanding in East Hull. There is to be a new estate to the South, which I understand from the local newspaper will provide 7,000 jobs. What jobs will they be? Will the Minister suggest where we might look for expansion, investment and development to provide these thousands of jobs which are hopefully looked for by the city council and the city industrialists?
We have a Government training centre. How many people, male and female, are passing through this centre? In other words, what results are seeping through? How many jobs are in the pipeline? May we please be given some job figures? On many occasions I have asked for information about job opportunities, but we are still in the dark. The same applies to my questions about industrial development certificates. May we be given some information?
What view do the Government take of the Yorkshire and Humberside area for the future, and particularly in the coming year? There is much anxiety among Yorkshire hon. Members about this. We met last week, since when we have tabled an Early Day Motion urging that these intermediate areas be given full development area status. A civic deputation met the Minister recently. I was a member of it, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We got a somewhat dusty answer from the hon. Gentleman and our trade union colleagues left in quite a dudgeon. Has the Minister anything more optimistic to tell us now?
Are any firms expanding into this area? Has he been given notice of this? Should we start training our young people ahead of demand for any special skills that these firms might require? Do the Government intend to reshape the economy in this area, because the situation is getting worse? I trust I have asked enough of the sort of questions to make the Minister realise that we must be told what thoughts the Government have for solving some of the problems of this area.
I was disturbed to read some comments in yesterday's Guardian under the heading "Where they may look vainly to Whitehall". The article referred to North Yorkshire, Humberside, the East Midlands and other depressed areas which were, it said, worsening compared with

the West Midlands and the South-East. The article began:
The full details of the Government's policy to combat inflation have yet to emerge, but whatever the outcome, the prospects for the already depressed regions of the country are grim".
Whereas in Yorkshire and Humberside we were about 1 per cent. over the national average of unemployment, we are now running at 2·6 per cent. and going up. Does the Minister think that this worsening situation is a short-term problem or—to quote a famous leader of his party, "a little local difficulty"—or is it the beginning of a longer cycle?
There is a considerable surplus of male labour north of the Humber which is concealed only by the outward migration of which I have spoken. All the business people and all the citizens of the area are anxious for us to halt this decline, with Government help if we can get it. However, we are worried by Tory philosophy, since hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that industry will expand in, and be attracted to, only those places where there are good prospects of immediate profits. It is more important now to think in terms of the varieties of special assistance which the Government can give to the intermediate areas.
Good communications are important to us because of our comparative isolation. I have spoken of the M18 and M62, and I come to the Humber Bridge. May we be given some definite information about this tonight? According to a Written Answer given today the cost would be £20 million. I know that the Government are in touch with the board in Hull, which wrote to the Minister on 16th November about financing the bridge. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall have from this Goverment the same backing that we had from the last. In the form of a loan at rates obviously cheaper than could be obtained from the outside money market? This information would help us greatly, and give us more heart on Humberside.
On the air services side, with the assistance of the Minister of Defence we are doing much better than we had expected. While recognising the difficulties, can the Minister help us in regard to the hours of operation of the aerodrome? I understand from my council colleagues


that we are being charged for the full service by the R.A.F. personnel. This may be merely an accounting procedure, but we are not in return getting full time help from the personnel.
In Cmnd. 4506 the Government tell us that they wish to move offices out of London. The Giro has gone to Bootle, the Mint has gone to Wales and I understand that the computer service has gone to Bradford. Will the Minister consider moving the headquarters of the White Fish Authority to Hull, which we consider to be a most excellent spot for it? Again, such action as this would give our people heart, some confidence in our long-term future and a feeling that the Government believe in us.
As the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) will tell him, we have in this area amenities second to none, with the chalk wolds behind us and the North Sea on our flank, with beaches and sands. We have many amenities which places that have been helped by the Government do not possess. So do not let us have the old tale about the North being unfashionable and people not liking to visit it. They do like it when they know about it. I might say that if a better image were given to us by the B.B.C. and the London newspapers we would find less opposition than we sometimes encounter.
We have had a feasibility study. We are told that, with our estuary looking towards Europe, our geopolitical position will be of immense service to us in the event of our entering the Common Market.
When will the Government choose the location for the Maritime Industrial Development Area? We claim that on the Humber we have better facilities than anywhere else for this unit. According to an accurate survey, we have about 140,000 acres of land on both banks suitable for either industrial or residential development. I urge the Minister to compare what we can offer with what can be offered by the Tees or any other estuary. I hope, Common Market or none, we shall soon have a decision.
Let no one say that there is any lack of self-help. We have had a malaise in the past, but we now have the North

Humberside Development Association, on whose steering committee my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East serves. That committee has produced what I believe to be a most helpful document about the future. I should like to see both banks fully developed. But let us now, with the aid of the Development Association, and with or without the aid of the B.B.C., scotch the idea that Hull is
… a flat lonely city that no one knows.
That is how the Observer referred to us not long ago. Hull is a city of parks and flowers. They will find water and ships within 200 yards of the Guildhall, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). We have enormous potential for development. No other area has such an extent of good flat land. I ask the Minister to give us some details and facts to help us.

10.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): May I say at the outset that I am slightly glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) did not seek to intervene, because, had he done so, it would have left me no time to reply to the many points which have been raised. I am acutely aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter, too.
I was very pleased to receive a delegation from Hull in the earlier part of the Autumn. I am the first to admit that the situation in Hull is not as healthy and as happy as either side of the House or any Government would like it to be. I am therefore glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has raised this subject tonight. Nothing but good can come from trying to pin point the causes of the trouble and explaining how the Government see the problems facing Hull.
In June 1968 the unemployment percentage was 3·3–4·6 per cent. among males. By this year the latest figure was 4·3 per cent.–6 per cent. among males. There has been a steadily worensing situation in Hull since 1966, for which this Government are not to blame. It is a situation which we found on taking office. There is no doubt that the economic measures taken by the Labour


Government have not succeeded in bringing prosperity to places like Hull or, for that matter, to many of the development areas either. It is therefore clear that the policies hitherto pursued would not be appropriate to meet the problem in the future.
Indeed, the general suggestion that more and more money is the answer can no longer be sustained after the experience which places like Hull have suffered. There is no doubt that the best cure for all the problems of the development areas would be a reflation of the economy, but it is clearly impossible, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, in the present situation of wage explosion, which would make it incredibly reckless to reflate the economy wildly, especially at a time like this when wages are rising much faster than ever before.
It is a curious point, but one which must be made, that one of the obstacles which stands in the way of the regions is the wage inflation which is preventing the Government from taking the action which would reactivate the economy and make a great difference to places like Hull.
I am glad to agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that the port of Hull is doing very well, despite the fact that it has lost some trade to the other side of the river. We believe that it has great prospects if we join the Common Market and that its North European and Scandinavian trade will continue to expand.
I was next asked about the dispersal of Government offices. We announced in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Central Government that we intend to continue the policy of dispersing Government offices from London. A new study is about to be undertaken to determine what further work can be located out of London, and this study will have regard, not only to efficiency and economy, but also to regional considerations. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on the claims of any particular place. As to the White Fish Authority, we have no plans for relocating its headquarters in Hull.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about development area status for Hull. I think we must allow the intermediate area status, which Hull has, to have a

little more time to show what it can do. We supported intermediate areas on this side of the House and the inclusion of Hull in one of the intermediate areas, and the period since the announcement, which I think is a more important date than the coming into force of legislation, has been about a year and a half.
During the year 1969, 1,000 new jobs were provided under i.d.c.s. in Kingston upon Hull, and during the first 10 months as opposed to 12 months in 1970 the number has risen to 1,500. This is a considerable improved rate of striking in what I might call a less happy year for the generation of mobile industry. So one can assume that the benefits of an intermediate area are having some effect.
I will give a few examples of recent development in North Humberside. Capper Pass have set up an ore smelter which is estimated to provide eventually 250 extra jobs. B.P. Chemical have sought an i.d.c. for 90,000 square feet and a further i.d.c. for 35,000 square feet this year. There is also the development of J. M. Fenner & Co. Ltd., Belmont Caravan Co. Ltd. and Ace Caravan Co. Ltd. all of which are swelling the new jobs which will be available in the area.
To give another statistic, in the last 1½ years since intermediate status was announced for Hull, there have been 84 applications for building grants which are expected to provide a further 2,000 jobs. We must, however, keep this in perspective. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that although his problem is one which causes great concern, in Clydeside there are 37,000 unemployed and on Tyneside there are 17,000 unemployed. The dimension of these problems is so much more serious than that of Hull that it would not be right at this stage to give development area status to Hull, thereby detracting from the advantages which are available in the development areas relative to other parts of the country.
I should like briefly to try to answer the hon. Gentleman's points about communications. I think he could overdo this point about isolation and remoteness. Certainly the communications to Hull are not good, but of course when it is properly connected to the road network it will be much nearer the centre and the heart of the country than many places which are further afield. Links


to the M62, the A1 and to the M18, and finally on to the M1 should all be complete by the middle of the 1970s and these east-west communications will, I believe, make a very great difference to the advantages and the attractiveness of Hull. The fact that the roads have started and that a date is in prospect for their completion will cause firms to begin to think about Hull. It is in my own limited experience remarkable how the mere fact that a road starts attracts industry. Whether or not it is finished, it is the failure to announce a starting date which so often delays firms' intentions to move.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Humber Bridge. To be twitted by him for not having got this started is a little hard. I remember the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) announcing at the North Hull by-election in 1966 that the bridge was about to be started. But it has not materialised yet. The hon. Gentleman will know that four years have gone by without any action being taken by his own Government.

Mr. Peter Shore: May I intervene?

Mr. Ridley: No, the right hon. Gentleman may not.

Mr. Shore: I want to correct that misstatement.

Mr. Ridley: The last Government did not promise financial assistance for the bridge. They merely said, on 30th April, 1969:
Like other major estuarial crossings, the bridge will be financed by loan, and tolled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1969; Vol. 782, C. 1439.]
That is my right hon. Friend's position. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the question of when the bridge will be completed and what the present situation is, he must ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, who, as he knows, is having further discussions with the local authorities about the financing of the bridge. I cannot say more about the bridge itself than that.
Overall, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the situation in Hull. I should like to have been able to answer all his questions, but it is not possible in 10 minutes. We believe that the present status of intermediate area is the right status for Hull. There is no intention to change that, and the attractions which it offers are, in our opinion, beginning to bring some new industry to the town. I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to wish Hull good fortune and as much development as can be got there in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.